Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Netfluid

by io.netfluid.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

netfluid__crypto_spend

Spends a digital asset to a destination blockchain address. Confirm (yes/no) before executing

Spends a digital asset to a destination blockchain address @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 of the sender or from account @param asset_id: The asset_id or contract address of the digital asset (token) on this blockchain, asset_id can be found from /crypto/digitalassets look for "address" in the response @param destination: The destination blockchain address (not the internal account address) @param amount: The amount of the digital asset to send, this amount is 10 to the power of the assets decimals, the asset's decimals can be found from /crypto/digitalassets look for "decimals" in the response. @param note: The note on the transaction

@return: a json object

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNo
tokenYes
amountYes
api_keyYes
asset_idYes
account_fkYes
destinationYes

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 burden. It does convey that this is an irreversible value-moving spend requiring confirmation, plus prerequisite dependencies (token from /access/login, asset_id/decimals from /crypto/digitalassets). However it omits reversibility/fee/permission detail and gives only 'a json object' for the return, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 summary sentence is duplicated verbatim ('Spends a digital asset to a destination blockchain address' appears twice), which is wasteful and muddles front-loading. The per-parameter block is long but each entry earns its place; the misplaced 'Confirm (yes/no)' clause is awkwardly positioned.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the parameter and dependency coverage is strong, but it leaves the confirmation mechanism ambiguous (no matching schema field), says nothing about permissions, irreversibility, or fees, and the return value is described only as 'a json object.' Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does so thoroughly: it clarifies account_fk is an int database ID (not an address, not 0), destination is the blockchain address (not internal), asset_id is the contract address sourced from /crypto/digitalassets, and amount is expressed as 10^decimals base units with a pointer to the decimals field. This adds genuine non-obvious meaning for all 7 parameters.

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+resource: 'Spends a digital asset to a destination blockchain address.' This distinguishes it reasonably from read-only siblings like crypto_balance, but it never explicitly contrasts with the nearby value-moving tools (crypto_swap, crypto_dex_swap, account_send), so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

The only workflow cue is 'Confirm (yes/no) before executing,' which is an ambiguous instruction (there is no confirm parameter in the schema) rather than selection guidance. No when-to-use vs. when-not, and no named alternatives among the many send/swap siblings are provided.

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