Skip to main content
Glama

transfer_nft

Transfer NFTs across EVM and Solana networks to recipient addresses. Supports ERC-721, ERC-1155, and Metaplex standards with configurable parameters for token amounts and wallet selection.

Instructions

Transfer an NFT (ERC-721/ERC-1155/Metaplex) to a recipient address. Default tier: APPROVAL.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesRecipient address (0x-hex for EVM, base58 for Solana).
token_addressYesNFT contract address (EVM) or mint address (Solana).
token_idYesToken ID within the contract (EVM). Use "0" for Solana Metaplex.
standardYesNFT standard.
networkYesNetwork identifier (e.g., "ethereum-mainnet", "solana-mainnet" or CAIP-2 "eip155:1").
amountNoNumber of tokens to transfer (default: "1"). Only relevant for ERC-1155 multi-copy NFTs. This is a count, not a smallest-unit value.
wallet_idNoTarget wallet ID. Required for multi-wallet sessions.

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that executes the logic for the "transfer_nft" tool, which constructs a request body with type 'NFT_TRANSFER' and sends it to the /v1/transactions/send API endpoint.
      async (args) => {
        const body: Record<string, unknown> = {
          type: 'NFT_TRANSFER',
          to: args.to,
          token: {
            address: args.token_address,
            tokenId: args.token_id,
            standard: args.standard,
          },
          network: args.network,
        };
        if (args.amount !== undefined) body.amount = args.amount;
        if (args.wallet_id) body.walletId = args.wallet_id;
        const result = await apiClient.post('/v1/transactions/send', body);
        return toToolResult(result);
      },
    );
  • The function that registers the "transfer_nft" tool with the MCP server, defining its schema and the handler logic.
    export function registerTransferNft(
      server: McpServer,
      apiClient: ApiClient,
      walletContext?: WalletContext,
    ): void {
      server.tool(
        'transfer_nft',
        withWalletPrefix(
          'Transfer an NFT (ERC-721/ERC-1155/Metaplex) to a recipient address. Default tier: APPROVAL.',
          walletContext?.walletName,
        ),
        {
          to: z.string().describe('Recipient address (0x-hex for EVM, base58 for Solana).'),
          token_address: z.string().describe('NFT contract address (EVM) or mint address (Solana).'),
          token_id: z.string().describe('Token ID within the contract (EVM). Use "0" for Solana Metaplex.'),
          standard: z.enum(['erc721', 'erc1155', 'metaplex']).describe('NFT standard.'),
          network: z.string().describe('Network identifier (e.g., "ethereum-mainnet", "solana-mainnet" or CAIP-2 "eip155:1").'),
          amount: z.string().optional().describe('Number of tokens to transfer (default: "1"). Only relevant for ERC-1155 multi-copy NFTs. This is a count, not a smallest-unit value.'),
          wallet_id: z.string().optional().describe('Target wallet ID. Required for multi-wallet sessions.'),
        },
        async (args) => {
          const body: Record<string, unknown> = {
            type: 'NFT_TRANSFER',
            to: args.to,
            token: {
              address: args.token_address,
              tokenId: args.token_id,
              standard: args.standard,
            },
            network: args.network,
          };
          if (args.amount !== undefined) body.amount = args.amount;
          if (args.wallet_id) body.walletId = args.wallet_id;
          const result = await apiClient.post('/v1/transactions/send', body);
          return toToolResult(result);
        },
      );
    }
  • The Zod schema definition for the input parameters of the "transfer_nft" tool, specifying required fields like recipient, token address, ID, standard, and network.
    {
      to: z.string().describe('Recipient address (0x-hex for EVM, base58 for Solana).'),
      token_address: z.string().describe('NFT contract address (EVM) or mint address (Solana).'),
      token_id: z.string().describe('Token ID within the contract (EVM). Use "0" for Solana Metaplex.'),
      standard: z.enum(['erc721', 'erc1155', 'metaplex']).describe('NFT standard.'),
      network: z.string().describe('Network identifier (e.g., "ethereum-mainnet", "solana-mainnet" or CAIP-2 "eip155:1").'),
      amount: z.string().optional().describe('Number of tokens to transfer (default: "1"). Only relevant for ERC-1155 multi-copy NFTs. This is a count, not a smallest-unit value.'),
      wallet_id: z.string().optional().describe('Target wallet ID. Required for multi-wallet sessions.'),
    },
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Adds 'Default tier: APPROVAL' indicating policy/approval workflow behavior not in schema. However, critically omits standard blockchain transaction traits: irreversibility, gas fee consumption, ownership requirements, and failure modes for a transfer operation.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with the core action, specifies standards parenthetically, and appends behavioral hint (APPROVAL tier). Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a 7-parameter blockchain transaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description meets minimum viability by specifying supported standards and approval tier. However, gaps remain regarding transaction safety characteristics (irreversibility, cost) and success/failure behaviors expected for financial operations.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., address formats, token ID usage). Description provides baseline adequacy without adding semantic depth beyond schema definitions (e.g., no syntax examples or cross-parameter relationships).

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

Purpose5/5

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

Specific verb 'Transfer' + resource 'NFT' + clear scope covering supported standards (ERC-721/ERC-1155/Metaplex). Effectively distinguishes from sibling 'send_token' (fungible) and read operations like 'list_nfts' by specifying the action and token standards.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Provides implied usage context through NFT standard specifications, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives (e.g., approve_token for allowances) or prerequisites (ownership verification). The 'Default tier: APPROVAL' hints at policy workflow but doesn't fully guide selection.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/minhoyoo-iotrust/WAIaaS'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server