Netfluid

netfluid__payment_wallet_set

Set this wallet as a payment wallet. Payments wallets are normal wallets that cannot login to the portal. They are typically used as sub-wallet by a sponsor wallet. A payment wallet's access control such as Secret, PIN and recovery words are held by the sponsor. @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 @return: a json object

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`token`	Yes
`api_key`	Yes
`wallet_fk`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations are empty, so description must carry full burden. It mentions that access control shifts to sponsor but does not disclose side effects like irreversibility or whether the wallet can be unset. The mutation nature is implied but not clarified.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is concise with front-loaded main action. The param block is structured but slightly verbose. No superfluous sentences.

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?

Despite output schema existence, the description only says '@return: a json object', lacking detail on success/failure indicators. For a mutation tool, behavioral context is missing, but param explanations partially compensate for 0% schema coverage.

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%, but description includes a @param block for each parameter, adding meaning: api_key is allocated to app, token and wallet_fk come from /access/login. This compensates for the sparse schema.

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 clearly states the main action 'Set this wallet as a payment wallet' and explains what a payment wallet is (cannot login, sub-wallet, sponsor holds access control). It distinguishes from sibling 'netfluid__payment_wallet_signup' which likely creates a new payment wallet.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like creating a payment wallet. The description does not mention prerequisites, when-not to use, or typical scenarios.

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?