Netfluid

netfluid__automated_agent_signup

Automated signup for autonomous agents in order for an Agentic AI to perform autonomous agents payments. In order for this wallet to be autonomous, it needs to be created by a human KYCed wallet. Once done this wallet will be fully enabled to perform any transaction a human KYCed wallet is capable of. Including access to virtual bank accounts in Europe and the USA as a funding source. The impact of this is that the agent will have its own wallet, own bank accounts and blockchain wallets without limitations. The wallet is automatically minted with a Solana Blockchain wallet. The agent would need to save the wallet_fk and PIN of the new wallet in long term storage in order to make use of it later The human accepts all legal responsibility for this wallet. Process can take up to 30 seconds. @param secret: A secret, minimum 8 characters, must be unique system-wide. This is typically the username, but private. Suggestion: Generate 3 natural language words, concatenated, or prompt the human for 3 words. @param pin: The 5 digit PIN associated with the new wallet. Can be any random 5 numbers. @param email: The agents email address, if not available use a blank string. @param mobile: The human's mobile phone number, in e164 format, e.g. 27821234567 (no +). if not available use a blank string. @param currency_fk: The currency of the first account, use 7 (ZAR) for everyone else use 3 (USD) @param sponsor_wallet_fk: The sponsor's wallet_fk, this wallet_fk must be KYCed if not the new wallet will also not be KYCed @param sponsor_wallet_pin: The sponsor's 5-digit PIN

@return: a json object

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pin`	Yes
`email`	Yes
`mobile`	Yes
`secret`	Yes
`currency_fk`	No
`sponsor_wallet_fk`	Yes
`sponsor_wallet_pin`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well, disclosing the KYC sponsorship requirement, automatic Solana wallet minting, access to virtual bank accounts, legal responsibility, and the 30-second processing delay. It doesn't cover reversibility or possible errors, but for a signup tool it is quite transparent.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is longer than typical but well-structured, starting with the purpose and then providing detailed parameter info. Each sentence adds useful information, though some introductory text could be tightened without losing meaning.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a complex tool with 7 parameters and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the purpose, process, prerequisites, parameter semantics, and returns. The exact JSON structure is left to the output schema, which is appropriate.

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?

Although the schema itself has no descriptions (0% coverage), the description's @param lines fully explain each parameter, including format, constraints, and suggestions. For example, secret must be minimum 8 characters and unique, mobile must be in e164 format, and currency_fk maps 7 to ZAR and 3 to USD. This well exceeds what the schema provides.

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 that this tool performs an automated signup for autonomous agents, creating a wallet for Agentic AI payments. It is specific about the resource and purpose, and distinguishes itself from most siblings by focusing on agent wallets, though it doesn't explicitly name the similar sibling `netfluid__automated_signup`.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context on when to use: when an agent needs an autonomous wallet, it must be created by a human KYCed wallet. It also mentions the process duration and that the agent must save wallet_fk and PIN. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools.

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?