Netfluid

netfluid__beneficiary_add

Creates a beneficiary on this wallet or on this account

Creates a beneficiary on this wallet or on this account @param api_key: The api key allocated to your application @param token: The wallet_api_token provided by /access/login @param wallet_fk: The wallet_fk provided by /access/login, may not be 0 @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 for this account, may be set to 0, in which case this beneficiary will be available to this wallet @param name: The descriptive name of this beneficiary, try to keep name short and unique per wallet @param address: The address of the beneficiary, either the Netfluid Account Address or the Blockchain address @param rba_fk: The rba_fk of the recipient bank account, set to 0 if either name or address is provided @param note: The note or recipient reference on the transaction, visible to the receiver.

@return: a json object

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`note`	Yes
`token`	Yes
`rba_fk`	Yes
`address`	Yes
`api_key`	Yes
`wallet_fk`	Yes
`account_fk`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it creates a beneficiary but does not describe side effects, authorization requirements, reversibility, or any other behavioral traits beyond the creation itself. The @return only says 'a json object' without detail.

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 first sentence is repeated verbatim twice, which is unnecessary and wastes space. The parameter documentation is structured but lengthy; however, given zero schema coverage, it serves a purpose. Overall it is not concise but is front-loaded.

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 8 required parameters and no annotations, but the description covers parameter semantics well. However, it lacks behavioral context such as when it applies, what the result is, or error conditions. The return value is only described as 'a json object', which is not helpful.

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 schema descriptions are absent (0% coverage), but the @param docs provide rich meaning for all 8 parameters, including relationships (account_fk may be 0 to make beneficiary wallet-wide), constraints (wallet_fk may not be 0), and types (account_fk is int not string). This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 explicitly states 'Creates a beneficiary on this wallet or on this account', using a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like beneficiaries_list and beneficiary_remove. The duplication of the sentence is redundant but does not affect clarity.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage through the verb 'add' and the context of beneficiary creation, but it never states exclusions or mentions the list/remove sibling tools. Therefore usage is only implicit, not explicit.

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?