Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Netfluid

by io.netfluid.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pinYes
emailYes
mobileYes
secretYes
currency_fkNo
sponsor_wallet_fkYes
sponsor_wallet_pinYes

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

A3.7/5.0
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 substantial work: it discloses the 30-second latency, that the sponsor must be KYCed, that a Solana wallet is auto-minted, that the human assumes legal responsibility, and strongly warns the caller to persist wallet_fk and PIN. It omits error/failure behavior and whether the call is idempotent or costs money.

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, but the body is bloated with marketing filler ('own wallet, own bank accounts and blockchain wallets without limitations') and typos ('agents payments'), and it mixes behavior, legal terms, and parameter docs without clear structure.

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 high-complexity, 7-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the creation flow, KYC dependency, latency, persistence requirement, and every parameter. Coverage of the return value is thin ('a json object', with wallet_fk/PIN only implied), which is the main remaining gap.

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 prose docs are the only source, and they cover all 7 params with real semantics: secret uniqueness/min-length with a generation suggestion, 5-digit PIN, e164 mobile format with blank-string fallback, and the sponsor KYC constraint. The currency_fk guidance is garbled ('use 7 (ZAR) for everyone else use 3 (USD)'), which blunts an otherwise strong parameter section.

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 first sentence states a specific verb+resource (automated signup for an agent wallet) and the description goes on to detail the distinctive flow: a human-KYCed sponsor wallet mints an agent wallet with a Solana blockchain wallet and bank accounts. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-identically named sibling netfluid__automated_signup, so an agent cannot tell them apart from text alone.

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?

Usage context is implied ('for an Agentic AI to perform autonomous agents payments') and it states a prerequisite (sponsor wallet must be KYCed or the new wallet won't be). There is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance against payment_wallet_signup or automated_signup, and no when-not-to-use condition.

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