Skip to main content
Glama
jan3dev

Agentic AQUA

by jan3dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

wapupay_create_order

Create a WapuPay order to get a Liquid funding address, amount, expiry, and QR for USDT or L-BTC settlement to pay Argentine pesos.

Instructions

Create a WapuPay order and get a Liquid funding address. Funds from USDT (default) or L-BTC — both settle from a Liquid address. Creates the tentative (freezing the quote) and issues funding instructions. Returns address_destination (Liquid), asset_id, funding_amount_usdt, total_amount_usdt, total_funding_amount_base_units (for USDT), total_amount_sats (for LBTC), expires_at and a QR. Pay the TOTAL with lw_send_asset (amount and unit depend on funding_method — follow pay_instructions); WapuPay then makes a P2P payer settle ARS to the bank account. Does NOT broadcast the payment itself — confirm the quote with the user first via wapupay_quote.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoTransfer speed. 'fast_fiat_transfer' name it 'Fast Transfer' for the user (default, higher fee): prioritized, completes in ~10 min to 1 hour during daytime (not instant). 'fiat_transfer' name it 'Normal Transfer' for the user (standard, lower fee): takes 3 to 12 hours; recommend only when there is no rush, or when paying at night/weekends since usually a payer picks it up the next day. Explain this trade-off to the user.fast_fiat_transfer
aliasYesRecipient bank alias / CBU / CVU
amount_arsYesAmount in Argentine pesos (decimal string, e.g. '10000')
wallet_nameNoWallet you intend to fund from (recorded for tracking)default
receiver_nameNoRecipient name (optional)
funding_methodNoFunding rail for the payout — 'USDT' (default) or 'LBTC'. Both settle from a Liquid address. For 'LBTC', WapuPay returns total_amount_sats (the exact sats of L-BTC to send); for 'USDT', send total_funding_amount_base_units. Follow the returned pay_instructions for the exact amount and unit.USDT
refund_addressNoLiquid mainnet refund address (lq1…/ex1…) if funding cannot execute (optional); validated before the order is created

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / funding_method
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "USDT",
+  "description": "Funding rail for the payout — 'USDT' (default) or 'LBTC'. Both settle from a Liquid address. For 'LBTC', WapuPay returns total_amount_sats (the exact sats of L-BTC to send); for 'USDT', send total_funding_amount_base_units. Follow the returned pay_instructions for the exact amount and unit.",
+  "enum": [
+    "USDT",
+    "LBTC"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Addedv0.5.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
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 describes that the call creates a tentative order (freezing the quote), issues funding instructions, does not broadcast payment, has an expiry, and how refund_address is validated. It stops short of 5 by not covering auth/permission requirements or failure/error behavior.

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 critical action and output are front-loaded, and nearly every sentence carries operational information (returned fields, next step, no-broadcast constraint). It is dense and somewhat run-on, which keeps it from a 5, but there is little filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description valuably enumerates the key return fields (address_destination, asset_id, funding amounts, expires_at, QR) and explains the downstream settlement flow. It is close to complete for an agent to call correctly, missing only auth requirements and error handling.

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 the schema already documents every parameter including the funding_method enum and its unit implications. The description reinforces the unit mapping (sats vs base_units) but adds little the schema does not already state, so the 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 ("Create a WapuPay order") plus the immediate output ("get a Liquid funding address"), and clarifies scope by noting it "Does NOT broadcast the payment itself." An agent can distinguish it from siblings like wapupay_quote (quote only), wapupay_fund_order, and wapupay_order_status.

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?

Gives explicit workflow routing: confirm the quote first via wapupay_quote, then pay the total with lw_send_asset following pay_instructions. It clearly signals the sequencing context but does not explicitly contrast when to prefer this over the fund/order-status siblings, so it stops short of 5.

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