Netfluid

netfluid__fund_card_recharge

Charges a tokenised Visa/Mastercard. Confirm (yes/no) before executing

STEP 2 Charges a tokenised Visa/Mastercard, use /card/quote before this end point The card must have been previously charged using /fund/card_3D_secure_complete @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 @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 provided by /wallet/accounts_list @param wallet_card_id: The wallet_card_id associated with this wallet, can be found with wallet/card_list @param amount: The amount in currency of the account_fk. All cards are charged in ZAR but a conversion of this amount to ZAR will be automatically performed. On top of this amount a fee with be charged equal to 3.5% for fees and insurance plus South African VAT of 15% (only on the fee portion). @param note: The note on the transaction

@return: a json object

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`token`	Yes
`amount`	Yes
`api_key`	Yes
`wallet_fk`	Yes
`account_fk`	Yes
`wallet_card_id`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the fee structure (3.5% plus 15% VAT on the fee), currency conversion behavior, and the prerequisite that the card must have been previously charged via 3D secure. This is significant behavioral context beyond simple 'charges'. However, it does not mention reversibility, failure handling, or idempotency.

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 front-loads the primary purpose but contains redundancy: 'Charges a tokenised Visa/Mastercard' appears twice, and the 'STEP 2' line repeats it. Grammar issues like 'a fee with be charged' add noise. It is not poorly sized but could be tightened to a single clear statement plus prerequisites.

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 no annotations and an output schema that is present but unhelpful ('a json object'), the description covers the required sequence, prerequisites, fees, and all parameter origins. It lacks details on success/failure response shapes, but the output schema exists and the essential operational context is provided.

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 @param documentation is essential. Each parameter is explained: account_fk is explicitly distinguished as a database ID not an address, wallet_card_id is tied to wallet/card_list, amount explains conversion and fee computation, and token/api_key specify their provenance. This fully compensates for the missing 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 explicitly states 'Charges a tokenised Visa/Mastercard' and clarifies it is STEP 2 after /card/quote, distinguishing it from the quote endpoint and other fund tools. The verb+resource is specific and unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It provides prerequisite guidance: 'use /card/quote before this end point' and 'card must have been previously charged using /fund/card_3D_secure_complete'. It also instructs to 'Confirm (yes/no) before executing', indicating a required user confirmation. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use this tool relative to siblings.

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?