Netfluid

netfluid__account_merchant_voucher_quote

Performs a quote to before issuing a Netfluid voucher as a merchant.

STEP 1: Performs a quote to issue a voucher as a merchant. Returns the merchant commission as well as the amount charged to the customer. @param api_key: The api key allocated to your application @param token: The wallet_api_token provided by /access/login @param account_fk: The account_fk (this is a database ID (int) not an account address (str) and may not be 0) The account_fk from which to issue the voucher @param amount: The amount to issue the voucher for in up to 2 decimals.

@return: a json object

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`token`	Yes
`amount`	Yes
`api_key`	Yes
`account_fk`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects; it describes the return fields but does not explicitly state that no voucher is issued or that it is a read-only quote. It gives some useful context about the account_fk type but lacks error behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The first sentence is redundant with the 'STEP 1' sentence, creating repetition. The @param and @return structure is clear, but the opening two lines could be merged.

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?

The tool is a prerequisite to issuance, but the description doesn't connect to the issue sibling. Parameter details are strong, but usage guidance and side-effect disclosure are missing, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Description provides @param explanations for all four required parameters, including the nuance that account_fk is a DB ID not an address, and amount precision. This fully compensates for the schema's 0% property descriptions.

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 a quote operation for merchant voucher issuance, mentioning return of commission and customer amount. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'issue' and 'redeem' voucher tools.

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?

The 'STEP 1' framing implies it is a prerequisite for issuing a voucher, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are given. It does not name the issue tool or state when not to use it.

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

All Netfluid tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping or identical purposes (e.g., netfluid__session and netfluid__session_2_token, netfluid__email and netfluid__send_email). With 142 tools spanning wallet, crypto, funding, and paywall features, distinguishing between similar account/crypto/balance tools requires careful reading of descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a snake_case pattern with a netfluid__ or paywall__ prefix, but there are inconsistencies like netfluid__session_2_token, netfluid__netfluid_voucher_check, and single-noun tools (netfluid__skill, netfluid__fees). The two namespaces use slightly different conventions, making the overall set feel less uniform.

Tool Count1/5

At 142 tools, this is an extremely large surface for any MCP server. Even for a comprehensive financial platform, this exceeds practical usability and likely includes duplicates or overly granular operations.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of operations including account management, crypto transactions, funding methods, withdrawals, and paywall subscriptions. However, the presence of duplicate tools suggests redundancy rather than a clean, minimal complete surface, and some workflows may require chaining many tools.

Resources

Need Help?