Skip to main content
Glama

Netfluid

by io.netfluid.mcp

paywall__customer_netfluid_fund_options

Returns ALL funding options via the Netfluid wallet. This is a comprehensive list for all Netfluid funding options that include:

  1. Netfluid wallet addresses for Netfluid to Netfluid payments, sender can use any currency;

  2. Electronic Banks Transfers to registered Netfluid Bank Accounts in multiple countries, including South Africa;

  3. Pay@ Online or at till point of most retailers in South Africa and Botswana;

  4. Payshap instant, low-cost bank to bank transfers in South Africa;

  5. Virtual Banks Accounts (fiat on-ramps) accepting instant fiat payments in Europe and the USA and converting the funds to USDC/USDt use wallet_stablecoin_transfer to cash-out to ZAR;

  6. Blockchain wallets that accept instant USDC/USDt transfers use wallet_stablecoin_transfer to cash-out to ZAR;

  7. Tokenised Visa/Mastercards charged in ZAR;

  8. Netfluid vouchers, simple digital vouchers issued by Netfluid wallets;

  9. OTT vouchers, available for purchase in most retailers, online or at local Spaza shops in South Africa. @param wallet_fk: The Netfluid wallet_fk @param pin: The Netfluid wallet PIN @param account_fk: The Netfluid account_fk (not account address but the database account_fk), if set to 0, we'll use the first available account

@return: a json object, containing the results in the "values" object

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pinYes
wallet_fkYes
account_fkNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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 the tool returns a list of options with details (9 items) and mentions handling of account_fk parameter. However, it does not state side effects, auth requirements beyond parameters, or error conditions.

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 is long (9 bullet points) but front-loaded with purpose. The bullet structure helps readability, but many details could be condensed for an AI agent without losing essential information.

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?

Output schema exists, so return format is covered. However, given 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and empty annotations, the description should explain more about parameters and provide usage context. It covers the 'what' but not the 'how' or 'when' sufficiently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description only partially explains parameters. Only account_fk is described (database FK, default 0 means first available). pin and wallet_fk are merely named with no additional meaning beyond the 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 it returns ALL funding options via Netfluid wallet, with a specific verb 'Returns' and resource 'funding options'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like paywall__customer_netfluid_fund_blockchain by being comprehensive.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

While the description implies use for an overview of funding options, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the more specific sibling tools (e.g., for blockchain or SEPA). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Netfluid toolsInspect
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