Skip to main content
Glama
jan3dev

Agentic AQUA

by jan3dev

jan3_purchase_ln_username

Purchase or update a Lightning username for a JAN3 account with on-chain payment (L-BTC or USDt). Obtain a price quote, then confirm to complete the transaction.

Instructions

Purchase / update the Lightning username for a JAN3 account with an on-chain payment (fund in L-BTC or USDt). TWO-STEP, do NOT pass confirm=true first: (1) call with confirm=false (default) to get a price quote WITHOUT spending — the server locks the price on that order; it returns display_amount (already formatted for the user, e.g. '2000 Sats' for L-BTC or '1.50 USDT' for USDt), amount_base_units (technical), amount, asset_ticker, payment_id and expires_at; SHOW display_amount to the user and get explicit consent; (2) only then call with confirm=true — it funds exactly the quoted order (same payment_id and amount) and errors if the quote expired (re-quote and re-confirm). When telling the user the price, use display_amount verbatim — never surface the raw amount/amount_base_units. Check availability first with jan3_ln_check_username. Requires an active JAN3 session (either flow).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
assetNoFunding asset — 'L-BTC' or 'USDt'. Ask the user which they prefer; the price is quoted in that asset.L-BTC
emailYes
confirmNoFalse (default) returns a non-spending price quote; True funds the previously quoted order. Only set True after the user approves the quoted display_amount.
passwordNoDecrypts the wallet mnemonic if encrypted at rest (only needed when confirm=true).
ln_usernameYesDesired username (the local part, before the @domain).
wallet_nameNoLiquid wallet used to fund the purchase.default
expected_amount_base_unitsNoWith confirm=true and no prior quote, the amount_base_units the user approved; the purchase aborts (nothing spent) if the current price exceeds it.
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the two-step locking behavior, quote expiration, error conditions, and return values. However, it could be more explicit about updating vs. new purchase and any side effects.

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?

The description is well-structured with numbered steps and warnings. It is slightly verbose but every sentence earns its place given the tool's complexity. Could be slightly more concise.

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?

Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is highly complete. It explains the flow, return values, failure conditions, and mentions prerequisite (active session). Minor gap: no details on update vs. purchase behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 86%, and the description adds significant value beyond schema. It explains the asset choice, confirm parameter role, password necessity, and expected_amount_base_units safety feature, making each parameter's purpose clear in the two-step flow.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Purchase / update the Lightning username for a JAN3 account with an on-chain payment'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'jan3_ln_check_username' by instructing to check availability first.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly outlines the two-step process, warns against passing confirm=true first, and details when to call each step. It also advises checking availability with jan3_ln_check_username, providing clear usage guidance.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jan3dev/agentic-aqua'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server