resolve_lightning_addressResolve a Lightning address (user@domain.com) to fetch LNURL metadata, min/max sendable amounts, and callback URL for Lightning payments.
Resolve a Lightning address (user@domain.com) to get LNURL metadata, min/max sendable amounts, and callback URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Lightning address (e.g. user@getalby.com) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does 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 what data is retrieved, which signals a read-only operation, but says nothing about errors for unresolvable addresses, network/auth requirements, or idempotency.
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?
One sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the outcome payload is tacked on efficiently.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and expected return fields well. Minor gaps remain around failure modes and timing, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.
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 coverage is 100% for the single 'address' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the user@domain.com format but adds no syntax or validation detail beyond what the schema already documents.
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 (Resolve) and resource (Lightning address), and even names the concrete return payload (LNURL metadata, min/max sendable amounts, callback URL). It implicitly separates itself from pay_lightning_address by being a lookup rather than a payment, but never explicitly references the sibling.
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?
The verb 'Resolve ... to get metadata' implies this is a read/pre-flight lookup, which an agent can infer is appropriate before paying. However there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to pay_lightning_address.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.