Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Stables MCP Server

Stables MCP Server

Official
by stables-money
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Create payment route

create_virtual_account
Destructive

Create a payment route and virtual bank account so customers can receive fiat deposits, convert them to stablecoin, and pay out to a required wallet address.

Instructions

Create a payment route (virtual bank account) so a customer can receive fiat deposits that convert to a stablecoin and pay out to a wallet. The payout destination is mandatory: the API refuses a fiat-to-crypto route without one. Deposit handling is set server-side and defaults to auto_payout; change it afterwards with update_virtual_account.

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": {
      "customerId": "<customerId>",
      "sourceCurrency": "<sourceCurrency>",
      "destinationAddress": "<destinationAddress>",
      "destinationPaymentRail": "<destinationPaymentRail>"
    },
    "name": "create_virtual_account"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
customerIdYesThe customer ID to create the payment route for
sourceCurrencyYesFiat currency the route collects in (e.g. 'AUD', 'USD', 'EUR')
destinationAddressYesWallet address deposits are paid out to. Validated against the chosen network
destinationCurrencyNoStablecoin to receiveusdt
destinationPaymentRailYesBlockchain network the payout address belongs to

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.6.11
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. Changed8 schema fields changedv2.4.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / customerId / description
      Previous value: -"The customer ID to create the virtual account for"New value: +"The customer ID to create the payment route for"
    • removedInput schema / properties / depositHandlingMode
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "How to handle deposits: 'auto_payout' converts and sends to wallet, 'hold' keeps as fiat, 'manual' requires approval",
-  "enum": [
-    "auto_payout",
-    "hold",
-    "manual"
-  ],
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / properties / destinationAddress / description
      Previous value: -"Crypto wallet address for payouts"New value: +"Wallet address deposits are paid out to. Validated against the chosen network"
    • addedInput schema / properties / destinationCurrency / default
      Added value: +"usdt"
    • changedInput schema / properties / destinationCurrency / description
      Previous value: -"Stablecoin to receive (default: usdc)"New value: +"Stablecoin to receive"
    • changedInput schema / properties / destinationPaymentRail / description
      Previous value: -"Blockchain network for the destination wallet"New value: +"Blockchain network the payout address belongs to"
    • changedInput schema / properties / sourceCurrency / description
      Previous value: -"Currency for the virtual account (e.g., 'USD', 'EUR', 'GBP')"New value: +"Fiat currency the route collects in (e.g. 'AUD', 'USD', 'EUR')"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "customerId",
-  "sourceCurrency"
-]New value: +[
+  "customerId",
+  "sourceCurrency",
+  "destinationAddress",
+  "destinationPaymentRail"
+]
  3. First observedv1.4.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds important behavioral context: the payout destination is mandatory and the API refuses a fiat-to-crypto route without one, plus deposit handling defaults to auto_payout server-side. It does not warn about non-idempotency or duplicate route creation, but it usefully supplements the annotations.

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 three tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. Each sentence adds actionable information: what is created, the mandatory payout constraint, and the default deposit handling with the update alternative.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a create mutation with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety traits, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, a critical validation constraint, default behavior, and the follow-up tool. It does not describe the response shape, but no output schema exists and the omission is not critical for correct invocation.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces that the payout destination is mandatory, but it does not add syntax or selection guidance beyond what the schema provides. A baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a payment route (virtual bank account)'. It also explains the route's purpose—receiving fiat deposits that convert to stablecoin and pay out to a wallet—which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_virtual_account and list_virtual_accounts.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It clearly describes the creation scenario and routes the agent to update_virtual_account for changing deposit handling afterward. It does not give explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name other creation alternatives, but the contrast with update_virtual_account is useful.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools