Lightning Wallet MCP

pay_lightning_address

Send Bitcoin payments to a Lightning address (user@domain.com) by specifying amount in satoshis and an optional comment. Supports operator or agent keys for authorization.

Instructions

Pay to a Lightning address (user@domain.com format). Works with an operator key (pays from the operator wallet) or an agent key.

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": "pay_lightning_address"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`address`	Yes	Lightning address (user@domain.com)
`comment`	No	Optional payment comment
`amount_sats`	Yes	Amount in satoshis to send

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.9Mar 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that funds come from the operator wallet or agent-key wallet, which is meaningful. It omits important behavioral details such as irreversibility, failure modes, balance requirements, or the LNURL resolution step.

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 sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the credential/wallet context is added in the second sentence without redundancy.

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

Completeness2/5

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

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what happens after a successful call or what errors look like. It does not mention return values, payment status, or failure behavior, leaving a high-stakes money-movement tool under-specified.

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 explains address, amount_sats, and comment. The description adds little beyond restating the address format, so the 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 states a specific action and resource: 'Pay to a Lightning address (user@domain.com format)' with enough detail to distinguish it from sibling payment tools like pay_invoice or keysend. It also clarifies which credentials are accepted, adding key context.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied: this tool is for paying Lightning addresses, and it explicitly notes it 'works with an operator key or an agent key.' However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over related payment tools such as pay_invoice, keysend, or nostr_zap.

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

Deploy Server