Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Agentic AQUA

Agentic AQUA

Official
by AquaWallet
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

sideswap_peg_out

Initiate a SideSwap peg-out to move L-BTC back to Bitcoin mainchain: broadcast the L-BTC send, and BTC arrives at your Bitcoin address after federation sweep.

Instructions

Initiate a SideSwap peg-out (L-BTC → BTC) and broadcast the L-BTC send. After 2 Liquid confirmations (~2 min) and the federation BTC sweep (typically 15–60 min total), BTC arrives at the user's Bitcoin address. Fees: 0.1% + Bitcoin network fee. Standard way to move L-BTC back to Bitcoin mainchain.

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>",
      "amount": "<amount>",
      "btc_address": "<btc_address>"
    },
    "name": "sideswap_peg_out"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
amountYesAmount in Satoshis to peg out
passwordNoPassword to decrypt mnemonic (if encrypted at rest)
btc_addressYesDestination Bitcoin address (bc1...)
wallet_nameYesLiquid wallet to send L-BTC from
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

A4.2/5.0
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 that the L-BTC send is broadcast immediately, gives confirmation timing (~2 min Liquid, 15–60 min total sweep) and exact fee structure (0.1% + Bitcoin network fee). It omits failure/refund behavior and the fact that the broadcast is irreversible, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences: action, timing, cost, then role. The most decision-relevant information (direction and broadcast) is front-loaded with no wasted wording.

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?

For a 5-param, no-output-schema, no-annotation mutation tool, the description covers direction, timing, and fees well. It could additionally note what is returned (e.g., a txid/status handle) or that state is tracked via sideswap_peg_status, but it is otherwise complete enough to call correctly.

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 are already documented, and the description adds no syntax, units, or format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Initiate a SideSwap peg-out (L-BTC → BTC)') with explicit directionality, which cleanly separates it from sideswap_peg_in and the swap siblings.

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?

Declares itself 'the standard way to move L-BTC back to Bitcoin mainchain,' giving a clear use context, but does not name alternatives such as sideswap_peg_quote for estimating before committing or any when-not conditions.

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