Ceki

create-topup-invoice

Generate a crypto deposit address to top up your AgentWallet with a specified USD amount. Supports blockchain tokens like ETH-USDT with a minimum of $5.

Instructions

Create a top-up invoice to deposit funds to your AgentWallet. Returns a crypto deposit address for the requested USD 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": {
      "currency": "<currency>",
      "amount_usd": "<amount_usd>"
    },
    "name": "create-topup-invoice"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`currency`	Yes	Currency in BLOCKCHAIN-TOKEN format (e.g. ETH-USDT)
`amount_usd`	Yes	Amount in USD (minimum 5)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description provides minimal behavioral insight. It states it creates an invoice and returns an address but omits details like whether the address is temporary, required authentication, or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences with no redundant information. Front-loaded with purpose and immediate outcome.

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?

Sufficient for a simple tool with two parameters, but could mention the return value structure since no output schema exists. Lacks details on address expiry or network specificity.

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 coverage is 100% and already documents format and minimum. The description adds the context of 'requested USD amount' but does not significantly extend beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Create', resource 'top-up invoice to deposit funds to your AgentWallet', and outcome 'Returns a crypto deposit address'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like request-withdrawal and get-wallet-transactions.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., request-withdrawal for withdrawals). Does not mention prerequisites like having an AgentWallet or consulting get-crypto-list for available currencies.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.