Netfluid

netfluid__account_wire

Sends FIAT or Digital Assets from this account to a blockchain address. FIAT is converted by the system. Confirm (yes/no) before executing

Sends FIAT or Digital Assets from this account to a blockchain address. The FIAT account must be associated to the same blockchain as the destination address @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 wire @param destination: The destination blockchain address (str) @param amount: The amount to wire @param digital_asset_fk: The digital_asset_fk to wire, use 0 for FIAT @param note: The note on the transaction

@return: a json object

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`token`	Yes
`amount`	Yes
`api_key`	Yes
`account_fk`	Yes
`destination`	Yes
`digital_asset_fk`	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 important behaviors: FIAT conversion by the system, a confirmation step (yes/no), and the blockchain association requirement. It does not mention irreversibility, fees, permissions, or failure modes.

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 description is somewhat redundant, repeating the first sentence almost verbatim. However, it is reasonably concise overall and uses a clear @param structure. The redundancy wastes a little space but doesn't severely hurt readability.

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 has moderate complexity with conversion and confirmation, and an output schema exists so return values are covered elsewhere. The description addresses key constraints but omits details like auth requirements, error handling, and post-confirmation behavior, leaving gaps for a complete understanding.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description's @param lines provide valuable semantics: clarifying account_fk as a database ID not an address and may not be 0, explaining digital_asset_fk uses 0 for FIAT, and describing each parameter's purpose. 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's function: sending FIAT or digital assets from an account to a blockchain address, with the verb 'sends' and specific resource/destination. It distinguishes from some siblings by mentioning blockchain address and FIAT conversion, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like account_send or account_pay.

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 implies usage for transferring funds to a blockchain address and includes a key prerequisite (FIAT account must be associated with the same blockchain as the destination). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions.

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?