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

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 19, 2026
- changedOutput schema / (root)
```
Previous value: -{
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
```
AddedJul 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden; it does add meaningful traits such as the required yes/no confirmation and the fact that this moves real money via ACH/WIRE. It still omits reversibility, failure behavior, auth/permission prerequisites, and rate limits, which matter for a financial off-ramp.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the param block is genuinely useful, but the opening sentence is duplicated verbatim in a slightly garbled second copy, which wastes space without adding information.

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?

For a 16-parameter, 12-required financial mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the parameter documentation is strong, but return behavior is dismissed as 'a json object' and the description says nothing about what happens to funds, timing, or error cases after invocation.

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% and there are no declared enums, yet the description documents every parameter, including allowed values for destination_rail (ach_same_day/wire), currency (usdc/usdt) and account_type (checking/savings), plus the constraint that account_fk is an integer ID that may not be 0. A few entries (token, api_key) only give provenance pointers, keeping this just short of exhaustive.

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?

States a specific verb (creates) plus resource (blockchain-to-FIAT off-ramp) and scope (USA, ACH/WIRE), which cleanly separates it from siblings like bridge_off_ramp_sepa and bridge_on_ramp. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

'Confirm (yes/no) before executing' gives a workflow instruction, and the USA/ACH-WIRE scope implies applicability. However, it never names when to prefer this over bridge_off_ramp_sepa, withdraw_to_bank, or account_wire, leaving alternative selection to inference.

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

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

Need Help?