Netfluid

netfluid__withdraw_to_ott_quote

Generates a withdrawal quote to a OTT Mobile supported provider

Step2. Generates a withdrawal quote to a OTT Mobile supported provider On successfully submission a quote_id will be returned, use with /withdraw/to_ott @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(this is a database ID (int) not an account address (str) and may not be 0) The account_fk from which the funds will be withdrawn @param provider_id: The provider_id returned from withdraw/ott_providers_list @param amount: The amount to be withdrawn from the account_fk, in its native currency.

@return: a json object

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`token`	Yes
`amount`	Yes
`api_key`	Yes
`account_fk`	Yes
`provider_id`	Yes

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?

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that a quote_id is returned and positions this as a non-executing step, but does not mention quote validity, fee reservation, or other side effects. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 ('Generates a withdrawal quote to a OTT Mobile supported provider' appears twice), and there are minor grammar issues ('a OTT', 'successfully submission'). The @param structure is readable but the redundancy hurts conciseness.

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 the output schema exists, the description needn't detail return values. It covers prerequisites, sequential usage, and parameter semantics thoroughly, making the tool's context complete. Minor gaps: no error conditions or quote expiration details.

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?

All five parameters are explicitly described with types, sources, and constraints—e.g., account_fk is a database int not an address and may not be 0, provider_id comes from the providers list, amount is in native currency. This is essential since the schema provides zero 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?

Clearly states it generates a withdrawal quote for OTT Mobile providers, with a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes itself as 'Step2' and instructs to use the returned quote_id with /withdraw/to_ott, separating it from the actual withdrawal execution.

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?

Provides a clear sequence: generate quote first (Step2), then use quote_id with /withdraw/to_ott. It also names a prerequisite (provider_id from withdraw/ott_providers_list). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative quote/query tools, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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?