Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Netfluid

by io.netfluid.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

netfluid__account_send

Sends FIAT from this account to another Netfluid account. Optionally save as a beneficiary. Confirm (yes/no) before executing

Sends FIAT from this account to an account address. Optionally save as a beneficiary. The FIAT sent is converted to the destination account's currency. This function can send FIAT across wallets @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 send @param destination: The destination's account address (type str, not account_fk, the user readable address of the account) @param amount: The amount to send @param note: The note on the transaction @param save: Optionally saves destination as beneficiary for future use. Boolean value of 0=False, 1=True @param name: Sets the beneficiary descriptive name. Only applicable if save is set to 1

@return: a json object

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
noteNo
saveNo
tokenYes
amountYes
api_keyYes
account_fkYes
destinationYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. Added

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With annotations empty, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that FIAT is converted to the destination currency and that transfers can cross wallets, but says nothing about irreversibility, permissions beyond the api_key/token params, failure behavior, or rate limits. The dangling 'Confirm (yes/no)' statement adds ambiguity rather than transparency.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, and the param list earns its space given 0% schema coverage. However the opening is duplicated almost verbatim across two sentences ('Sends FIAT ... Optionally save as a beneficiary'), and the stray 'Confirm (yes/no) before executing' dangles without a corresponding field.

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?

For a money-movement tool with no annotations and no output schema, this leaves key questions open: how the stated confirmation is supposed to be performed, what the returned 'json object' contains, and whether the transfer is reversible. Parameter documentation is solid, but the safety and interaction model is incomplete.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and the @param block does substantial work: it disambiguates account_fk (an int database ID, not an address) from destination (a user-readable address string), and clarifies save as 0/1 and name as applicable only when save=1. This resolves the most confusing parts of the schema. It loses a point only because it does not fix the schema's apparent type error on 'name' (typed integer).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Sends FIAT from this account to another Netfluid account', and adds scope details (converted to destination currency, cross-wallet). It is clearly distinguishable from withdraw_to_bank or beneficiary_add, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with nearby siblings like account_wire, account_pay, or account_swap.

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?

The only usage-ish instruction is 'Confirm (yes/no) before executing', but no such confirmation parameter exists in the schema, so the guidance is unactionable and confusing. There is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing away from account_wire, account_pay, or account_swap.

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

All Netfluid toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources