Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Netfluid

by io.netfluid.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

netfluid__crypto_dex_swap

Swaps a token for another token using a Distributed Exchange (DEX) on the blockchain. Confirm (yes/no) before executing

Swaps a token (not a digital asset) for another token using a Distributed Exchange (DEX) on the blockchain. The DEX charges fees in performing the swap Unsupported tokens will not be displayed in balances, a blockchain explorer will be required to retrieve these @param api_key: The api key allocated to your application @param token: The wallet_api_token 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 associated with this blockchain wallet @param from_token: The origin token mint or contract address @param to_token: The destination token mint or contract address @param amount: The amount of the token to swap

@return: a json object

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenYes
amountYes
api_keyYes
to_tokenYes
account_fkYes
from_tokenYes

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
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden and it delivers meaningful behavior: a confirmation step is required before execution, the DEX charges fees, and unsupported tokens will not appear in balances (needing a block explorer). It does not cover auth requirements, reversibility of the swap, or failure behavior.

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 core swap sentence is stated twice in near-identical form ('Swaps a token for another token using a Distributed Exchange (DEX) on the blockchain'), which is redundant. The confirm instruction is front-loaded well, but the duplication wastes space.

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 6-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers inputs, the confirmation gate, fees, and one important caveat. It is still missing auth/permission requirements, whether the swap is irreversible, and any sense of the returned JSON beyond 'a json object'.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does — every one of the six parameters is documented, including the high-value caveat that account_fk is a database ID (int, not an address) and may not be 0. The api_key and token descriptions are terse but sufficient to distinguish them.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (swaps one token for another via a DEX on-chain), which is clear enough to act on. It fails to differentiate from the sibling tools netfluid__crypto_swap and netfluid__account_swap, so an agent cannot tell which swap variant to pick without opening schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of when this should be preferred over crypto_swap or account_swap. The only procedural instruction is the confirm (yes/no) step, which is execution mechanics, not selection guidance.

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