Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Agentic AQUA

Agentic AQUA

Official
by AquaWallet
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

lw_send_asset

Send a specified amount in satoshis of a Liquid asset to a destination address from a named wallet, using the asset ID and optional password or password file.

Instructions

Send a Liquid asset (USDT, etc.) 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>",
      "asset_id": "<asset_id>"
    },
    "name": "lw_send_asset"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
amountYesAmount in Satoshis
addressYesDestination Liquid address
asset_idYesAsset ID (hex string)
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?

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about the irreversible nature of broadcasting a transfer, network fees, whether a confirmation step exists, or what happens when the password is missing. The only behavioral hints (password decryption, password_file preference) live in the schema, not the description.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, but its brevity borders on under-specification for a fund-moving operation. Every word earns its place; the problem is what is absent rather than what is padded.

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 a destructive, value-transferring tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should cover irreversibility, fees, and expected confirmation. Instead it offers nothing an agent could not already derive from the name and schema.

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 non-obvious 'Amount in Satoshis' and the asset_id hex format is already documented. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline for full coverage.

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 and resource ('Send a Liquid asset ... to an address') and scopes it to issued Liquid assets such as USDT, which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling lw_send (L-BTC). It never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusion such as 'use lw_send for L-BTC instead', and no stated prerequisites about wallet state or asset ownership. The agent must guess between lw_send, lw_send_asset, and lw_sweep from names alone.

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