Netfluid

netfluid__bridge_on_ramp

Creates a virtual account (SEPA/ACH/WIRE) to blockchain bridge. Confirm (yes/no) before executing

Creates a virtual account (SEPA/ACH/WIRE) to blockchain bridge. Limited to one virtual account per payment rail (SEPA/ACH/WIRE). @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 blockchain: The blockchain that will receive the transfer. Possible values "ethereum","solana","avalanche_c_chain" @param address: The address on the above blockchain that will receive the transfer @param alias: A descriptive name for this Bridge, can be anything, set by async default if none is provided. @param currency: The destination currency, possible values are "usdc", "usdt" @param source_rail: The source rail, possible values are "sepa", "wire" or "ach_push"

@return: a json object

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`alias`	No
`token`	Yes
`address`	Yes
`api_key`	Yes
`currency`	No
`wallet_fk`	Yes
`account_fk`	Yes
`blockchain`	Yes
`source_rail`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a confirmation step ('Confirm (yes/no) before executing'), a business rule (one virtual account per payment rail), async default for alias, and clarifies that account_fk is an int database ID not an address. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it does not cover everything (e.g., reversibility, fees).

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 structured with a summary, @param list, and @return, but the opening sentence is duplicated ('Creates a virtual account...' appears twice), which wastes space and hurts conciseness. Still, it is reasonably organized and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 params, no annotations), the description is quite complete: it documents all parameters, constraints, and some behavioral details. It lacks explicit usage guidance and some operational context (e.g., prerequisites beyond parameters), but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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's @param section explains every parameter, including possible values for blockchain, currency, and source_rail, plus the meaning of account_fk and the source of token/wallet_fk. This fully compensates for the lack of schema 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 the tool creates a virtual account (SEPA/ACH/WIRE) to blockchain bridge, with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions the limitation of one account per payment rail, distinguishing it from bridge deletion, listing, and off-ramp tools among siblings.

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 implies usage by describing the action and the confirmation requirement, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like off-ramp or bridge_blockchain. It provides a constraint (one per rail) but no direct when/when-not guidance.

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?