Netfluid

netfluid__payment_wallet_signup

Creates a payment wallet. Payment wallets are a form of sub-wallet of which the sponsor controls access to the Secret,PIN and recovery keywords. A payment wallet cannot login to the portal and is therefore only accessible to the sponsor via the api or this mcp. In order for this wallet to exists, it needs to be created by a human KYCed wallet. Once created this wallet will be fully enabled to perform any transaction any other wallet is capable of. Including access to virtual bank accounts in Europe and the USA as a funding source. The wallet is automatically minted with a Solana Blockchain wallet. The sponsor would typically only need to save the wallet_fk and PIN of the new wallet in their storage in order to make use of it later. The secret is optional purely to maintain backward compatibility, if not provided the system will generate default values. We suggest you use the mobile and email of the sponsor where available, in order to get access to recovery methods. The human accepts all legal responsibility for this payment wallet. Process can take up to 30 seconds. @param secret: A secret, minimum 8 characters, must be unique system-wide. This is typically the username, but private. Suggestion: Generate 3 natural language words, concatenated, or prompt the human for 3 words. @param pin: The 5 digit PIN associated with the new wallet. Can be any random 5 numbers. @param email: The agents email address, if not available use a blank string. @param mobile: The human's mobile phone number, in e164 format, e.g. 27821234567 (no +). if not available use a blank string. @param currency_fk: The currency of the first account, use 7 (ZAR) for everyone else use 3 (USD) @param sponsor_wallet_fk: The sponsor's wallet_fk, this wallet_fk must be KYCed if not the new wallet will also not be KYCed @param sponsor_wallet_pin: The sponsor's 5-digit PIN

@return: a json object

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`pin`	Yes
`email`	No	27012345678@netfluid.ltd
`mobile`	No	27012345678
`secret`	No	81fc6380-782c-4bde-8d0e-4c26eebca55b
`currency_fk`	No
`sponsor_wallet_fk`	Yes
`sponsor_wallet_pin`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: wallet creation process, KYC dependency, Solana blockchain minting, time estimate (30s), and sponsor responsibilities. It also explains optional secret and default generation.

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?

The description is verbose but well-structured, starting with the main purpose and then detailing parameters. Every part adds value; however, it could be slightly more concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the new wallet's capabilities, dependencies (sponsor KYC), required outputs (wallet_fk, PIN to save), and time estimate. Although the output schema exists, the description mentions a JSON return, which is adequate. All essential context for using this tool 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 description carries full burden. Each parameter (secret, pin, email, mobile, currency_fk, sponsor_wallet_fk, sponsor_wallet_pin) is explained with constraints, defaults, and suggestions (e.g., secret generation, e164 format, currency codes).

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 it creates a payment wallet, a sub-wallet with specific access restrictions. It distinguishes from other wallet and signup tools by specifying that the wallet cannot log in and is sponsor-controlled.

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?

The description explains the context of use: creating a sub-wallet that cannot login, controlled by a KYCed sponsor. It implies when to use this tool but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide direct comparisons to similar tools like netfluid__automated_signup.

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?