Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Agentic AQUA

Agentic AQUA

Official
by AquaWallet
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

lightning_send

Pay a BOLT11 Lightning invoice or Lightning Address using L-BTC from a Liquid wallet via submarine swap, bridging on-chain Liquid funds to settle Lightning payments through Indra or Boltz.

Instructions

Pay a Lightning invoice or Lightning Address using L-BTC from a Liquid wallet (submarine swap). Provider: Indra by default, limits 1,000 – 100,000 Sats; Boltz (lightning_provider="boltz") allows 100 – 25,000,000 Sats. Fees: ~0.1% + miner fees (~21 Sats).

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": {
      "invoice": "<invoice>"
    },
    "name": "lightning_send"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
invoiceYesBOLT11 Lightning invoice (lnbc.../lntb...) OR Lightning Address (user@domain.com)
passwordNoPassword to decrypt mnemonic (if encrypted at rest)
amount_satsNoAmount in sats. Required when invoice is a Lightning Address; optional for BOLT11 (must match if supplied).
wallet_nameNoLiquid wallet to pay fromdefault
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

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful behavior: this is a submarine swap, which provider is used, their amount limits, and expected cost (~0.1% + ~21 Sats miner fees). It omits critical traits for a payment tool - that the payment is irreversible, that sufficient L-BTC balance is required, swap expiry/timeout behavior, and what happens on failure or partial completion.

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?

Two tight sentences: purpose first, then operational constraints. Every clause carries information (provider names, limits, fees). Slightly dense with nested parentheticals, but there is no filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a fund-moving tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers cost and amount bounds but not outcome reporting or recovery. It never mentions the existence of lightning_transaction_status or lightning_refund siblings, which an agent would need after a failed or pending swap, and the dangling lightning_provider reference leaves the provider-selection path 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains invoice, amount_sats, wallet_name, password, and password_file, making 3 the baseline. The description adds provider-tier context, but it references a parameter (lightning_provider) that does not appear in the input schema at all, which could send an agent looking for a nonexistent field rather than adding clarity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Pay a Lightning invoice or Lightning Address') plus the funding source ('L-BTC from a Liquid wallet') and the mechanism ('submarine swap'), which cleanly separates it from lw_send, btc_send, and changelly_send. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Gives actionable selection guidance between the two backends: Indra is the default with 1,000-100,000 Sat limits, Boltz requires lightning_provider="boltz" and supports 100-25,000,000 Sats. However, it never states when to prefer this over sibling send tools (lw_send, btc_send) or what to do when the amount falls outside both providers' ranges.

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