Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Agentic AQUA

Agentic AQUA

Official
by AquaWallet
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

lw_import_mnemonic

Import a BIP39 seed phrase to create both Bitcoin and Liquid wallets from one seed, with optional password encryption and network selection.

Instructions

Import a wallet from a BIP39 seed phrase (creates both Liquid and Bitcoin wallets from the same seed)

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": {
      "mnemonic": "<mnemonic>"
    },
    "name": "lw_import_mnemonic"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
networkNoNetwork to usemainnet
mnemonicYesBIP39 mnemonic phrase (12 words)
passwordNoOptional password to encrypt the mnemonic at rest (NOT a BIP39 passphrase)
wallet_nameNoName for the walletdefault
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

A3.5/5.0
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 it does disclose an important side effect beyond the schema: one seed spawns both a Liquid and a Bitcoin wallet. However, it omits whether an existing wallet with the same name is overwritten, whether the mnemonic is stored encrypted by default, and what is returned on success.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the key side effect in parentheses; there is no filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (both chains created from one seed) is attached directly to the action.

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 state-mutating, secret-handling tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the main behavioral surprise (dual wallet creation) but leaves out overwrite semantics, required encryption posture, and success/failure outcome, so an agent cannot fully predict the effect of calling it.

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 all five parameters (including the password vs password_file distinction and the testnet/mainnet enum) are already documented in structured fields. The description only reinforces that the mnemonic is a BIP39 phrase and adds no new syntax, format, or interaction guidance beyond the schema.

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 ('Import a wallet from a BIP39 seed phrase') and distinguishes itself implicitly from descriptor-based import (lw_import_descriptor) and fresh creation (lw_create_wallet) by naming BIP39 seed phrase as the input medium. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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 only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool for restoring an existing wallet when a 12-word phrase is available. There is no explicit when-to-use vs lw_create_wallet or lw_import_seed vs lw_import_descriptor guidance, and no stated preconditions such as whether an existing wallet must not exist.

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