Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Agentic AQUA

Agentic AQUA

Official
by AquaWallet
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

sideswap_peg_quote

Quote the receive amount and fees for a BTC ↔ L-BTC SideSwap peg before sending, returning send, receive, and fee amounts.

Instructions

Quote the receive amount for a SideSwap peg (BTC ↔ L-BTC) at current fees (0.1% + ~286 sats Liquid claim fee on peg-in). Returns send_amount, recv_amount, fee_amount.

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": {
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "sideswap_peg_quote"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
amountYesSend amount in Satoshis
peg_inNoTrue for BTC → L-BTC, False for L-BTC → BTC
networkNomainnet

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses fee structure (0.1% + ~286 sats) and return fields, but no annotations exist. It lacks details on side effects, auth requirements, or state changes, leaving gaps for the agent.

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?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose, key fee info, and return fields. No wasted words.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basics but omits details like peg direction clarity, network impact, and behavioral traits, leaving the agent with moderate understanding.

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 67% (amount and peg_in have descriptions; network lacks description). The description adds fee context but does not explain parameter semantics beyond schema, e.g., network values.

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 clearly states it quotes the receive amount for a SideSwap peg (BTC ↔ L-BTC) with fee details. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sideswap_peg_in/sideswap_peg_out (execution) and sideswap_quote (generic swap), but could be more explicit.

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?

The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite information is given, despite many related sibling tools.

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