Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Lightning Wallet MCP

Lightning Wallet MCP

by lightningfaucet
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

fund_agent

Transfer satoshis from the operator's balance to a specific agent in the Lightning Wallet MCP's operator-agent hierarchy. Specify the agent ID and amount in satoshis to allocate funds for autonomous payments and budget management.

Instructions

Transfer sats from operator balance to an agent.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "agent_id": "<agent_id>",
      "amount_sats": "<amount_sats>"
    },
    "name": "fund_agent"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agent_idYesID of the agent to fund
amount_satsYesAmount in satoshis to transfer

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.9

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the transfer action but does not disclose side effects (e.g., transaction creation, error handling for insufficient balance). It is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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?

A single sentence that is clear and front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words, efficient communication.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given only two required parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete. However, it does not explain the return value or error conditions, leaving some gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 both parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (transfer), the resource (sats from operator balance), and the target (agent). It distinguishes from siblings like 'transfer_to_agent' by specifying the direction, making it clear what this tool does.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'transfer_to_agent'. No prerequisites (e.g., agent must exist, operator has sufficient balance) are mentioned. The description lacks contextual hints for appropriate use.

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