MIDL MCP Server

Official

by midl-ai

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Hybrid

midl_transfer_evm

Destructive

Transfer native BTC on the EVM layer to a specified EVM address by providing recipient address and amount in BTC.

Instructions

Transfer native BTC on the EVM layer to another address.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "to": "<to>",
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "midl_transfer_evm"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to`	Yes	Recipient EVM address
`amount`	Yes	Amount in BTC (e.g., "0.1")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0May 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that the transfer involves 'native BTC on the EVM layer' but does not elaborate on behavioral traits such as irreversibility, source account deduction, or fee handling. It meets the minimum bar but lacks additional context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence of 10 words. Every word is necessary, no redundancy or filler. Perfectly efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has two parameters and no output schema. The description states the basic action but omits details such as what happens on success (e.g., returns a transaction hash), whether a wallet connection is required, or any potential failure modes. Adequate for simple tasks but incomplete for a transfer tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema-provided parameter descriptions ('Recipient EVM address', 'Amount in BTC'). It does not clarify format beyond the example in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Transfer' and identifies the resource as 'native BTC on the EVM layer', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like midl_bridge_evm_to_btc or midl_transfer_token. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar transfer tools for other assets.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.