Netfluid

netfluid__wallet_rba

Saves a Recipient Bank Account (RBA) for use on future withdrawals. Confirm (yes/no) before executing

Saves a Recipient Bank Account (RBA) for use on future withdrawals. @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 @param beneficiary: The beneficiary name @param bank: The bank's name @param iban: The account's IBAN/Account number @param swift: The account's swift routing code or branch code which ever is applicable @param email: The recipient's email address @param note: The note or recipient reference on the bank transfer @param address_street: The street address of the bank @param address_city: The city in which the bank is located @param address_zip: The postal code of the location of the bank, zip code or "None" @param countryISO2: The 2-digit ISO code of the country in which the bank is located, must match the content of the swift code

@return: a json object

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bank`	Yes
`iban`	Yes
`note`	No
`email`	Yes
`swift`	Yes
`token`	Yes
`api_key`	Yes
`wallet_fk`	Yes
`address_zip`	No
`beneficiary`	Yes
`countryISO2`	No
`address_city`	No
`address_street`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With empty annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the write nature ('Saves'), the confirmation requirement, and parameter source hints, but it does not mention side effects, idempotency, validation, or error behavior beyond returning 'a json object'.

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 opening sentence is duplicated verbatim, which is wasteful. The structure is otherwise orderly and front-loaded with purpose and confirmation, but the redundancy prevents a higher score.

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?

The description covers all parameter meanings, gives authentication context, and notes the confirmation step, making it largely sufficient for correct invocation. It lacks explicit alternatives and detailed return/error information, but an output schema exists, reducing the need for a detailed return description.

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?

Even though the input schema has no property descriptions, the tool description provides thorough @param documentation for all 13 parameters, including where auth tokens come from, what IBAN/swift represent, and the constraint that countryISO2 must match the swift code.

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 a specific action ('Saves a Recipient Bank Account'), a specific resource ('RBA'), and a clear purpose ('for use on future withdrawals'), distinguishing it from list/removal siblings like wallet_rba_list.

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 provides clear context: this is for saving an RBA to be used on future withdrawals. It also includes an explicit operative instruction ('Confirm (yes/no) before executing'). However, it does not name alternatives or when not to use the tool among sibling tools.

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?