Register the seller's BOLT11 payout invoice for an escrow so Lightning release pays out in one step. Call before or right after funding; amount must not exceed escrow amount.
As seller, register the BOLT11 invoice (amount <= escrow amount) that the payout leg pays when the escrow releases. Do this before or right after funding so release can complete in one step.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| invoice | Yes | ||
| escrow_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the seller role, the amount <= escrow amount constraint, and the workflow dependency on funding, but omits overwrite/idempotency behavior, error cases, and whether the invoice can be replaced.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two front-loaded sentences with no filler. The timing guideline follows the main action and keeps the total length appropriate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-param mutation with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, role, timing, and a key validation constraint. It leaves some operational details unstated but is otherwise sufficient for invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It adds meaning for invoice (BOLT11, amount constraint, payout leg) and implies escrow_id via escrow-release context, but escrow_id's format and role are not explicitly defined.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: register the BOLT11 invoice, scoped as seller for the payout leg. It distinguishes itself from release/fund escrow by focusing on invoice setup before release, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says to do this before or right after funding so release can complete in one step, giving clear timing context. It does not state when not to call it or name alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.