Netfluid

netfluid__bridge_off_ramp_ach_wire

Creates a blockchain to FIAT off-ramp in the USA supporting both ACH/WIRE bank networks. Confirm (yes/no) before executing

Creates a blockchain to FIAT off-ramp in the USA support both ACH/WIRE bank networks. @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 @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 that will use the bridge @param account_owner: The owner of the recipient bank account @param account_number: The recipient bank account number @param routing_number: The recipient bank account routing number (us) or sort code (uk). @param address_line: The address of the recipient, street and must include a number @param address_city: The address of the recipient, city @param address_state: The address of the recipient, state @param address_zipcode: The address of the recipient, zip or postal code @param address_iso3_country: The address of the recipient, ISO3 country code @param alias: A descriptive name for this Bridge, can be anything, set by async default if none is provided. @param destination_rail: The destination rail to use, possible values are "ach_same_day" and "wire", async default is "ach_same_day" @param currency: The crypto currency to expect, possible values are "usdc","usdt", async defaults to "usdc" @param account_type: The recipient bank account type, possible values are "checking" or "savings", async defaults to "checking". Only applicable when destination_rail = "wire"

@return: a json object

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`alias`	No
`token`	Yes
`api_key`	Yes
`currency`	No
`wallet_fk`	Yes
`account_fk`	Yes
`account_type`	No
`address_city`	Yes
`address_line`	Yes
`account_owner`	Yes
`address_state`	Yes
`account_number`	Yes
`routing_number`	Yes
`address_zipcode`	Yes
`destination_rail`	No
`address_iso3_country`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key behavior: 'Confirm (yes/no) before executing,' indicating an interactive confirmation step. It also mentions async defaults for several parameters. However, it does not explain the full execution flow, reversibility, or any side effects beyond creation, leaving gaps.

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 front-loaded with a clear first line but immediately repeats the same idea with a typo: 'support both ACH/WIRE bank networks.' This duplication wastes space. The @param list is necessary and well-organized, but the redundant opening sentence and overall length lower the conciseness score.

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 complex tool with 16 params and no annotation support, the description covers nearly all necessary context: parameter meanings, defaults, source of credentials (from /access/login), and confirmation requirement. An output schema exists, so the return format need not be detailed. Missing minor context like error conditions or prerequisites beyond login, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description thoroughly documents all 16 parameters with meaningful details: defaults for alias, destination_rail, currency, and account_type; allowed values for destination_rail and currency; and clarifications such as account_fk being a database ID and routing_number being US routing or UK sort code. 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.

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states a specific action: 'Creates a blockchain to FIAT off-ramp in the USA supporting both ACH/WIRE bank networks.' This distinguishes it from siblings like bridge_off_ramp_sepa and bridge_on_ramp by specifying the exact resource (blockchain-to-FIAT off-ramp) and rails (ACH/WIRE).

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: for US-based off-ramps supporting ACH/WIRE networks. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the geographic and rail specifics imply the appropriate use case, and the sibling name bridge_off_ramp_sepa reinforces the distinction.

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?