Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Agentic AQUA

Agentic AQUA

Official
by AquaWallet
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

btc_send

Send Bitcoin from a named wallet to a destination address by specifying the amount in satoshis, with an optional fee rate and wallet password for encrypted wallets.

Instructions

Send BTC to an address

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": {
      "wallet_name": "<wallet_name>",
      "address": "<address>",
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "btc_send"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
amountYesAmount in Satoshis
addressYesDestination Bitcoin address (bc1...)
fee_rateNoOptional fee rate in Sat/vB
passwordNoPassword to decrypt mnemonic (if encrypted at rest)
wallet_nameYesName of the wallet
password_fileNoPath to a local file containing the wallet password; keeps the password out of the conversation. Do not combine with password.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost none of it. It does not mention that the transfer is irreversible, that funds leave the wallet, that a fee is deducted at the given fee_rate, or that a password/password_file may be needed to decrypt the mnemonic before signing.

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?

The single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, which is good structure. It is arguably undersized for a six-parameter financial mutation, but there is no padding or redundancy to penalize.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is an irreversible value-transfer tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description says nothing about safety, fees, confirmation behavior, or what a success response contains. Given the complexity and the complete absence of structured behavioral hints, the definition is substantially incomplete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including the mutually exclusive password vs password_file guidance is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning such as amount units, address validation rules, or default fee behavior, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 description states a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('BTC') plus the target ('to an address'), so the core action is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish this on-chain send from sibling tools such as lw_send, lightning_send, sideshift_send, or btc_sweep, leaving the agent to infer the boundary from the name prefix alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling send tools, no prerequisites stated, and no exclusions. The agent must guess that this is an on-chain BTC transfer rather than a Liquid, Lightning, or swap-based send.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools