Lightning Wallet MCP

nostr_zap

Send Lightning payments to any Lightning address with optional Nostr zap receipts. Supports NIP-57 for proper zap receipts; falls back to standard payment if recipient does not support NIP-57. Requires a Nostr identity set in the agent key.

Instructions

Send a Nostr zap (NIP-57 Lightning payment with optional Nostr event). If the recipient supports NIP-57, a proper zap receipt is created. Otherwise falls back to a regular Lightning address payment. REQUIRES AGENT KEY with Nostr identity set.

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": {
      "address": "<address>",
      "amount_sats": "<amount_sats>"
    },
    "name": "nostr_zap"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`relays`	No	Nostr relay URLs for zap receipt
`address`	Yes	Lightning address to zap (user@domain.com)
`content`	No	Optional zap comment/message
`event_id`	No	Nostr event ID to attach zap to (hex format)
`amount_sats`	Yes	Amount in satoshis to zap
`recipient_pubkey`	No	Nostr hex pubkey of recipient (for NIP-57 zap receipt)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.9Mar 23, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, description covers main behavior (zap with fallback) and agent key requirement but lacks details on destructive nature, cost, or rate limits. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences plus a requirement note. No fluff, front-loads purpose.

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?

Covers purpose, fallback, and requirement. Missing return value description, but overall adequate for a 6-param tool with no output schema or annotations.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds context about NIP-57 and optional event but does not significantly enhance parameter descriptions beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states 'Send a Nostr zap' and explains NIP-57 vs fallback behavior, distinguishing it from siblings like pay_lightning_address. Verb+resource is specific.

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?

Explicitly mentions fallback behavior and the requirement for agent key with Nostr identity. Provides context on when proper zap receipt is created, though could directly compare to siblings.

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

Deploy Server