Wise MCP Server

Price a payment

create_quote

Price a payment to see the exchange rate, fees, and amount on each side before setting up a transfer; no money is sent or reserved.

Instructions

Price a payment: the rate, the fee and the amount on each side. Nothing is sent and nothing is reserved; a quote expires on its own. Use it to show the cost before setting up a transfer. Pass recipient_id for the exact fee to that recipient.

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": {
      "source_currency": "<source_currency>",
      "target_currency": "<target_currency>",
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "create_quote"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`amount`	Yes	The amount.
`pay_in`	No	How it will be paid: BALANCE from a Wise balance, BANK_TRANSFER from a bank. Changes the fee shown.
`profile`	No	The Wise profile id to act for. Defaults to WISE_PROFILE_ID, else the only business profile. See list_profiles.
`amount_is`	No	`target` (default): the recipient receives exactly this, as on an invoice. `source`: this is what leaves the account.
`recipient_id`	No	The recipient, for that route's exact fee.
`source_currency`	Yes	The currency paid from, such as EUR.
`target_currency`	Yes	The currency the recipient receives.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations mark this non-destructive but not read-only, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: nothing is sent, nothing is reserved, and the quote expires on its own. That resolves the main behavioral question an agent would have about a non-read-only pricing call. Idempotency behavior (each call creates a new expiring quote) is only implied.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the returned data, with the safety caveat and use case immediately after. 'Nothing is sent and nothing is reserved' is slightly redundant but serves as a deliberate two-part reassurance rather than padding.

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?

With 7 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is priced, what comes back, that it is side-effect free, and when to add recipient_id. It does not explain how pay_in or amount_is alter the result beyond what the schema says, but the schema covers those fully.

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%, including enum explanations for pay_in and amount_is, so the schema carries the parameter burden and the baseline is 3. The description's note on recipient_id ('for the exact fee to that recipient') largely restates what the schema already says about that same parameter and adds no new syntax or format detail.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Price a payment') and names the outputs ('the rate, the fee and the amount on each side'), which separates it from pure-rate siblings like get_rate. It stops short of naming get_rate or compare_prices directly, so the distinction relies on inference from the return contents.

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?

It gives one clear use case ('show the cost before setting up a transfer') and one conditional hint (pass recipient_id for the exact fee). There is no explicit when-not guidance and no reference to the sibling tools an agent should choose between, such as get_rate or compare_prices, leaving the routing decision partly implicit.

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