Netfluid

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

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`note`	No
`save`	No
`token`	Yes
`amount`	Yes
`api_key`	Yes
`account_fk`	Yes
`destination`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

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 full burden. It discloses the confirmation step, currency conversion, and optional beneficiary saving, but does not mention potential fees, reversibility, or required permissions beyond the auth params. For a FIAT transfer tool, this leaves notable behavioral gaps.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is redundant: 'Sends FIAT from this account to another Netfluid account' and 'Sends FIAT from this account to an account address' appear in two consecutive paragraphs, and 'Optionally save as a beneficiary' is repeated. The parameter block is useful but could be tightened. The repetition wastes space and harms readability.

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?

For a complex financial tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, the description covers key aspects: confirmation, currency conversion, cross-wallet operation, and the account_fk vs address distinction. It does not explain fees, error handling, or exact return structure, but the presence of an output schema and the detailed parameter docs make it reasonably complete.

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?

The description provides exceptional parameter documentation despite 0% schema description coverage. It clarifies critical nuances: account_fk is an int database ID (not an address), destination is a user-readable address, save is a boolean 0/1, and name only applies if save=1. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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?

The description clearly states the tool 'Sends FIAT from this account to another Netfluid account' and adds 'This function can send FIAT across wallets', which helps distinguish it from similar money-movement tools. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the verb+resource+scope is specific and unambiguous.

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 description includes a usage-critical instruction: 'Confirm (yes/no) before executing', and explains currency conversion and cross-wallet capabilities. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., account_wire, account_pay), nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond authentication parameters.

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?