Skip to main content
Glama

netfluid__bridge_off_ramp_sepa

Creates a blockchain (USDC) to FIAT off-ramp in Europe for SEPA supporting bank accounts. Confirm (yes/no) before executing

Creates a blockchain to FIAT off-ramp in Europe for SEPA supporting bank accounts. @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 iban: The recipient bank account IBAN @param iso3_country: The recipient bank account iso3 country code, examples BEL for Belgium @param iban_bic: The recipient bank account IBAN BIC. @param entity_type: The type of entity, possible values are "individual" or "business" @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 first_name: If type of entity is and "individual", provide the recipients first name @param last_name: If type of entity is an "individual", provide the recipients last name @param business_name: If type of entity is a "business", provide the business name, if not provided we will use the account_owner @param reference: The payment reference, displayed on the recipients bank statement.

@return: a json object

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ibanYes
aliasNo
tokenYes
api_keyYes
iban_bicYes
last_nameNo
referenceNo
wallet_fkYes
account_fkYes
first_nameNo
entity_typeYes
address_cityYes
address_lineYes
iso3_countryYes
account_ownerYes
address_stateYes
business_nameNo
address_zipcodeYes
address_iso3_countryYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key behavior: 'Confirm (yes/no) before executing,' and mentions async default for alias. Yet it omits details on permissions, reversibility, or side effects beyond creation, so the transparency is only partial.

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 starts with a clear purpose statement, but the same sentence is repeated almost verbatim after the confirmation note, wasting space. The @param list is well-structured but the redundancy reduces overall conciseness.

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?

While parameter semantics are thorough, the description lacks high-level workflow context such as prerequisites (e.g., having sufficient USDC) or what happens after confirmation. The output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the overall operation context remains incomplete.

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 provides detailed @param explanations for all 19 parameters, including conditional logic for entity_type (individual vs business) and clarifications like account_fk being a database ID. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare input schema.

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 the tool 'Creates a blockchain (USDC) to FIAT off-ramp in Europe for SEPA supporting bank accounts,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguished from siblings by explicitly naming SEPA and USDC, which differentiates it from tools like netfluid__bridge_off_ramp_ach_wire and netfluid__bridge_on_ramp.

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 provides clear context by specifying Europe and SEPA-supporting bank accounts, implying when this tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

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