List all the supported digital assets, a list of digital_asset_fk also applicable to to_digital_asset_fk
List all the supported digital assets, each entry returns a digital_asset_fk for later use @param api_key: The api key allocated to your application
@return: a json object
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions that it returns 'a json object' and requires an api_key. It does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or whether the list is static or filtered. The read-only nature is implied by 'list all', but details are sparse.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description repeats the same 'List all the supported digital assets' sentence twice with only slight variation. This redundancy does not add value and wastes space. The @param and @return sections are conventional but the duplication hurts conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values are likely documented there. The description adds the useful note about reusing digital_asset_fk in other endpoints. However, it omits any mention of error handling, pagination, or response structure, which would be helpful for a list endpoint.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description explicitly documents api_key as 'The api key allocated to your application'. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare string type, and for a single parameter, it is sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'List all the supported digital assets' and explains that each entry returns a digital_asset_fk. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like crypto_digitalasset_info (which likely retrieves a single asset). However, the wording is redundant and includes a confusing 'to_digital_asset_fk' phrase.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates the returned digital_asset_fk is 'applicable to to_digital_asset_fk' and 'for later use', implying this list is a prerequisite for other operations. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like crypto_digitalasset_info or crypto_balance, but the list-all purpose is reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.