Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wdk-wallet-liquid-mcp

wdk-wallet-liquid-mcp

Official
by kaleidoswap
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

liquid_get_node_info

Verify wallet connectivity by retrieving the Liquid network summary: network name, L-BTC asset ID, current receive address, and chain tip height.

Instructions

Get the Liquid wallet network summary: network name, policy (L-BTC) asset id, current receive address, and the chain tip height. Call this first to confirm the wallet is reachable.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "liquid_get_node_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only health check via 'confirm the wallet is reachable' but does not explicitly state that the operation has no side effects, requires no authentication, or describe error behavior. The description adds some useful context but lacks explicit safety disclosure.

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?

The description is two concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the action and return fields, then gives a usage tip. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple zero-parameter getter with no output schema, the description adequately lists the returned fields and provides usage guidance. It lacks details about potential errors or unreachable-wallet behavior, but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is effectively 100%. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 gets a Liquid wallet network summary and enumerates the specific fields returned (network name, policy asset ID, receive address, chain tip height). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle balances, transactions, and sends.

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?

The description explicitly instructs to call this first to confirm wallet reachability, providing clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the call-first guidance is sufficient context for this getter tool.

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