Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Netfluid

by io.netfluid.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
aliasNo
tokenYes
addressYes
api_keyYes
currencyNo
wallet_fkYes
account_fkYes
blockchainYes
source_railNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. Added

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the confirmation gate and the one-account-per-rail limit, but omits auth/permission requirements, idempotency, failure modes, and what exactly happens to the virtual account after creation.

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 opening sentence is duplicated verbatim ('Creates a virtual account (SEPA/ACH/WIRE) to blockchain bridge' appears twice), wasting space, and the @param block is verbose. Content is front-loaded but not tight.

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 9-parameter, non-read-only bridge tool with no annotations and no output schema, the parameter coverage is good and the confirmation protocol is noted. What remains missing is the surrounding behavioral context: how confirmation is actually supplied, auth/credential expectations, and error handling.

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%, yet the description documents all nine parameters inline, including enum-like value sets for blockchain ('ethereum','solana','avalanche_c_chain'), currency, and source_rail, plus the critical warning that account_fk is a database int and may not be 0. This substantially compensates for the empty schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Creates a virtual account (SEPA/ACH/WIRE) to blockchain bridge') and adds a distinguishing constraint ('Limited to one virtual account per payment rail'). It is clear enough to separate on-ramp from off-ramp siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

It gives one real usage instruction ('Confirm (yes/no) before executing') and a constraint on how many accounts may exist per rail. It does not, however, say when to choose this tool over bridge_off_ramp_sepa/ach_wire or bridge_blockchain, nor state prerequisites for calling it.

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

All Netfluid toolsInspect
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