Resolve a Lightning Address (user@domain.com) to a payable BOLT11 invoice for a given amount. Handles the full LNURL-pay protocol internally. Returns the invoice plus min/max sendable amounts for validation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Lightning Address in user@domain.com format. | |
| amount_sats | Yes | Amount you want to send, in satoshis. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds genuinely useful behaviour beyond that: it handles the full LNURL-pay protocol internally and returns the invoice plus min/max sendable amounts for validation. It doesn't mention auth or rate-limit behaviour, but with a low annotation bar this is solid added context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every clause earns its place (output type, protocol handling, return contents). No filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter resolve with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, that it performs the protocol exchange, and what it returns. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters (address format, amount in sats) are fully documented in the schema. The description restates 'user@domain.com' and 'given amount' but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb (Resolve) plus resource (Lightning Address user@domain.com) plus concrete output (payable BOLT11 invoice). An agent immediately knows what this does and what it produces.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies the use case (converting an address to a payable invoice for a given amount), and no sibling overlaps with Lightning functionality. However it states no explicit when-to-use/when-not conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
