Netfluid

paywall__wallet_visa_mastercard_recharge

Charges the Netfluid wallet's tokenised Visa/mastercards. The funds received from the card will remain in the Netfluid account_fk balance until transferred, see wallet_transfer. Only tokenised cards can be charged, use payment_3d_secure_link, when wallet_visa_mastercard_card_list returns empty in order to tokenize the card. Use wallet_visa_mastercard_card_list to retrieve the wallet_card_id Minimum amount is 1 ZAR. Merchant fees (3.5%) plus Netfluid Card Deposit fees (2.5%) will be deducted from the amount received. Always set the amount to charge at least 6% more than what's required in the wallet. @param wallet_fk: The Netfluid wallet_fk @param pin: The Netfluid wallet PIN @param wallet_card_id: The Netfluid tokenised card id, use wallet_visa_mastercard_card_list to retrieve this id. @param amount: The amount in ZAR to charge the card, must be 2 decimals. @param account_fk: The Netfluid account_fk into which the funds will be deposited, if 0 the system will select the first available ZAR account. On completion, use wallet_transfer to transfer funds to the paywall wallet. @return: a json object, containing the results in the "values" object

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pin`	Yes
`amount`	Yes
`wallet_fk`	Yes
`account_fk`	No
`wallet_card_id`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses fees (3.5% + 2.5%), minimum amount (1 ZAR), required overcharge (6%), destination of funds (account_fk balance), and return format. No contradictions identified.

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?

Well-structured with action, context, fees, param list, and return. Some redundancy (e.g., 'use wallet_transfer' mentioned twice) but overall efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's complexity and no output schema, the description explains return type and workflow. References related tools (wallet_transfer, payment_3d_secure_link). Could be improved by mentioning error handling or idempotency, but remains fairly complete.

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%, but the description gives detailed explanations for all 5 parameters, including purpose, source (wallet_visa_mastercard_card_list), default behavior (account_fk=0), and formatting (2 decimals for amount). Adds significant 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?

Clearly states the action 'Charges' and the resource 'Netfluid wallet's tokenised Visa/mastercards'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like wallet_transfer and payment_3d_secure_link by explaining the place of this tool in the workflow.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when to use (tokenised cards), when not to (use payment_3d_secure_link to tokenize if card list empty), and provides follow-up action (use wallet_transfer). Includes specific prerequisites and recommendations.

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?