Claim funds from an LNURL-withdraw link. REQUIRES AGENT KEY.
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": {
"lnurl": "<lnurl>"
},
"name": "claim_lnurl_withdraw"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lnurl | Yes | LNURL-withdraw string to claim from |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the requirement for an agent key but does not mention side effects (e.g., if the link is consumed, if funds are transferred, or any other behavioral traits).
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?
The description is concise (two short sentences) and front-loaded with the action. However, the requirement could be integrated into the first sentence to reduce repetition.
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?
Given a single parameter and no output schema, the description should explain outcome, side effects, and potential errors. It only states the action and a prerequisite, leaving out critical context like fund destination or link usability.
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% (single parameter with description). The description repeats the parameter's purpose ('LNURL-withdraw link') without adding new details like format, validation, or examples. Baseline is acceptable.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Claim funds from an LNURL-withdraw link') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_withdraw_link' and 'lnurl_auth' by naming the specific action, but it does not explicitly differentiate.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'pay_invoice' or 'lnurl_auth'. The only usage hint is 'REQUIRES AGENT KEY', which is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline.
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.