Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Lightning Wallet

by io.github.lightningfaucet
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

pay_lightning_address

Pay to a Lightning address (user@domain.com format). Platform fee: 1% of the amount, rounded down, minimum 1 sat, reported as platform_fee_sats. Works with an operator key (pays from the operator wallet) or an agent key.

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": {
      "address": "<address>",
      "amount_sats": "<amount_sats>"
    },
    "name": "pay_lightning_address"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYesLightning address (user@domain.com)
commentNoOptional payment comment
amount_satsYesAmount in satoshis to send

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the cost model (1% rounded down, minimum 1 sat) plus the wallet-source behavior for operator vs agent keys, including the returned platform_fee_sats field. It stops short of stating irreversibility, failure modes, or budget/spend-policy gating, which matter for a value-transfer tool.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, cost model, credential modes. Purpose is front-loaded and no sentence restates the schema or the name.

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 payment tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers cost, wallet source, and one response field, which is above baseline. It could still say what a successful payment returns (preimage/hash) and whether funds are debited from the agent budget, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 address, amount_sats, and the 144-char comment limit are already documented. The description reinforces the address format and adds the platform_fee_sats output context but says nothing about the comment parameter or amount bounds beyond what the schema states — baseline 3.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Pay to a Lightning address' with the address format (user@domain.com) spelled out, which is what separates it from invoice-based siblings like pay_invoice or keysend. It never names those alternatives, so an agent must infer the distinction from the format alone rather than being routed explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the address-format requirement (use this when the recipient gave you a Lightning address, not a BOLT11 invoice), but there is no explicit when/when-not statement, no mention of prerequisites such as spend policy or budget checks, and no sibling named as the alternative.

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

All Lightning Wallet toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources