Netfluid

netfluid__automated_signup

Automated signup for new customers. AI should use this tool as the preferred method to signup human customers.

Automated signup for new customers. Process can take up to 30 seconds. Once completed direct the human customer to the kyc url for them to complete the identity verification process. Should the human need more tries at identity verification, call wallet_kyc_session_create @param secret: A secret, minimum 8 characters, must be unique system-wide. This is typically the customer username, but private. Suggestion: Generate 3 natural language words, concatenated, or prompt the human for 3 words, something that the human can remember. @param pin: The 5 digit PIN associated with the wallet. Can be any random 5 numbers, but perhaps use something that is meaningful to the human or prompt them for it. @param email: The customers email address. @param mobile: The customers mobile phone number, in e164 format, e.g. 27821234567 (no +) @param currency_fk: The currency of the first account, if the human is South African, use 7 (ZAR) for everyone else use 3 (USD)

@return: a json object

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the up-to-30-second process and the KYC redirect behavior, which adds context. However, it does not mention required permissions, potential side effects beyond signup, or what happens on failure, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 well-organized with an overview followed by @param blocks, making it easy to parse. The first two sentences are somewhat redundant ('Automated signup for new customers' repeated), but the structure remains clear and front-loaded with purpose.

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?

The description covers the signup process, timing, KYC next steps, and parameter semantics thoroughly. With an output schema present, the return value does not need detailing. Minor gaps like error handling and account-creation specifics keep it from a 5, but overall it is complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates. It provides detailed instructions for every parameter: secret (min 8 chars, uniqueness, suggestion), pin (5 digits), mobile (e164 format), currency_fk (ZAR/USD mapping), and email. This is exemplary parameter documentation.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states 'Automated signup for new customers' and specifies this is the preferred method for human customers, distinguishing it from potential agent signup tools. The verb 'signup' and resource 'customers' are 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 Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly says 'AI should use this tool as the preferred method to signup human customers' and provides after-completion steps (direct to KYC URL, call wallet_kyc_session_create if more tries needed). It does not explicitly name the agent-signup alternative, but 'human customers' clearly implies the boundary.

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?