Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Agentic AQUA

Agentic AQUA

Official
by AquaWallet
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

pix_receive

Create a PIX charge via Ankara that pays DePix to a local Liquid wallet using a JAN3 account with approved KYC; returns Copia e Cola, QR data, fees, and swap ID.

Instructions

Create a PIX charge through Ankara that pays DePix to a local Liquid wallet. Requires JAN3 login and approved hosted KYC. amount_cents is the gross PIX amount in BRL cents (100 = R$1.00). Returns PIX Copia e Cola, QR image data, Ankara's dynamic fee breakdown, and swap_id for pix_status.

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": {
      "email": "<email>",
      "amount_cents": "<amount_cents>"
    },
    "name": "pix_receive"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYesLogged-in JAN3 account email with approved Eulen KYC
wallet_nameNoMainnet Liquid wallet that will receive DePixdefault
amount_centsYesGross PIX amount in BRL cents; 100 means R$1.00

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses auth and KYC gating, that this creates a charge (a mutation with financial consequence), and what the caller gets back including Ankara's dynamic fee breakdown. It does not mention charge expiry, failure paths when KYC is not approved, or whether the charge can be cancelled, which leaves some operational behavior undisclosed.

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?

Four dense, front-loaded sentences: purpose, prerequisites, unit semantics, then return/routing. Nothing is wasted, though the amount_cents restatement is redundant with the schema and could be dropped.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the return payload (Copia e Cola, QR image data, fee breakdown, swap_id). Combined with the stated prerequisites and the link to pix_status, an agent has what it needs to invoke correctly, with only minor gaps around failure and expiry behavior.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description's restatement that amount_cents is the gross PIX amount in BRL cents duplicates the schema rather than adding new meaning (e.g. whether fees are deducted from it or added on top), so it lands at the baseline.

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 ('Create a PIX charge') and names the exact downstream effect ('pays DePix to a local Liquid wallet' via Ankara), which disambiguates the possibly-misleading 'receive' in the tool name. It also names the sibling pair (pix_receive vs pix_status) so an agent can place it in the flow without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly states prerequisites ('Requires JAN3 login and approved hosted KYC') and routes the agent to pix_status via the returned swap_id for follow-up. There is no explicit 'do not use this when…' or contrast with pix_list, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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