Amazap

Top up

top_up

Destructive

Only creates an invoice for the human to pay. It does not move sats and does not spend the credit balance. Put the QR image and the QR URL in your own message. Pay from any Lightning app. Do not paste the invoice. Pass include_invoice only when the human asks. Pass awaiting_buy only when a buy is waiting.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`amount_sats`	No	Sats to add. Default 5000. (minimum 1).
`accept_terms`	No	Optional. When this covers the current terms, the account stores that acceptance. The invoice still does not move sats.
`awaiting_buy`	No	Default false. Set true only when a buy is waiting on this payment.
`include_invoice`	No	Default false. Set true only when the human asks for the raw invoice, or the QR and links cannot be used.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	No	approval_required, limit_exceeded, or insufficient_balance.
`paid`	No
`which`	No	per_call, per_day, per_session, per_hour_buys, per_minute_calls, or per_minute_sats.
`status`	No
`message`	No
`quoteId`	No
`results`	No	Search rows when this is a search result.
`totalCost`	No
`totalSats`	No
`approvalUrl`	No	Page where the person approves this exact price.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 21, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / accept_terms

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional. When this covers the current terms, the account stores that acceptance. The invoice still does not move sats.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedOct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations, it discloses critical behavior: it creates an invoice but does not move sats or spend the credit balance, and it instructs where to put QR data and not to paste the invoice. The annotations mark it non-read-only and destructive, while the description clarifies the actual side effect is invoice creation without moving funds; this adds useful context rather than directly contradicting 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 front-loaded with the core side effect, then gives compact operational instructions and parameter conditions. Sentences are short and every one supports correct invocation.

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 an output schema, rich annotations, and 100% schema description coverage, the description supplies enough operational context for safe invocation: invoice-only scope, QR handling, and optional parameter conditions. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly discuss idempotency or duplicate-invoice behavior, though idempotentHint=false is available in annotations.

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 coverage is 100%, so amount_sats and accept_terms are fully documented in the schema. The description repeats the conditional usage for include_invoice and awaiting_buy that is already present in the schema, so it adds little beyond the structured parameter documentation.

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 first sentence names a specific action, creating an invoice for the human to pay, and the next sentence distinguishes it from spending or moving sats. It does not explicitly name sibling tools such as buy or quote, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 gives clear conditions for optional parameters: include_invoice only when the human asks, and awaiting_buy only when a buy is waiting. It also says to pay from any Lightning app, though it does not explicitly state when to choose top_up over buy or quote.

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

All Amazap tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?