Lightning Wallet

place_bet

Bet on a fixed-odds prediction market with the REAL deposited sats of the Lightning Faucet account this operator is linked to (link_account first). Bonus sats are never used, and agent bets earn no promos, rebates or leaderboard prizes. You bet at the offered price only: pass expected_odds_pct = round(100 / multiplier, 2) and expected_line_version from markets_browse, and the bet is refused with the current offer if either moved. Same limits as the website (min/max stake, exposure and position caps), plus per-bet and per-day limits the account owner sets on lightningfaucet.com (read them with get_agent_limits). idempotency_key is required: reuse the same key on any retry and you get the original bet back, never a second one. Fixed-odds markets only. REQUIRES OPERATOR KEY linked with link_account.

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": {
      "market_id": "<market_id>",
      "position": "<position>",
      "amount_sats": "<amount_sats>",
      "expected_odds_pct": "<expected_odds_pct>",
      "expected_line_version": "<expected_line_version>",
      "idempotency_key": "<idempotency_key>"
    },
    "name": "place_bet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`position`	Yes	Side to back
`market_id`	Yes	Market id from markets_browse (odds_model fixed_odds)
`amount_sats`	Yes	Stake in sats from the linked account's deposited balance
`idempotency_key`	Yes	Required. Unique per bet (a UUID is fine); reuse the same key when retrying
`expected_odds_pct`	Yes	round(100 / multiplier, 2) for your side, from markets_browse
`expected_line_version`	Yes	The line_version you saw in markets_browse

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it names the funding source (deposited sats only, bonus sats never used), the lost perks (no promos, rebates or leaderboard prizes), the rejection semantics when odds or line version move, the layered limits (website caps plus per-bet/per-day owner limits), and idempotency retry behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and funding source, then constraints in descending importance, ending with the operator-key requirement. It is dense and long-sentenced but nearly every clause carries a rule an agent must obey; only the repeated money/limits framing could be tightened.

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?

A high-stakes mutation with no output schema and no annotations, covered well on inputs, preconditions and failure modes; the one real gap is that it never describes the successful response payload beyond 'you get the original bet back', leaving the agent to discover the bet record's fields at runtime.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: expected_odds_pct = round(100/multiplier, 2), expected_line_version must come from markets_browse, and idempotency_key must be reused verbatim on retry to avoid a duplicate bet. These are usage-critical details about parameter values, not just restatements.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Bet on a fixed-odds prediction market') and pins the scope to the operator's linked Lightning Faucet account with real deposited sats. The 'Fixed-odds markets only' clause narrows it against the family of prediction tools, though it never names the near-duplicate sibling (prediction_place_bet) that an agent would otherwise have to disambiguate from.

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?

Explicit prerequisites ('link_account first', 'REQUIRES OPERATOR KEY'), explicit exclusions ('Fixed-odds markets only'), and a pointer to the limits tool ('read them with get_agent_limits'). What's missing is a direct statement of when to prefer this over prediction_place_bet or prediction_market.

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

All Lightning Wallet tools Inspect

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.