DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

agent.kya_register

KYA — Know Your Agent. Three-tier registration model — compliance burden scales with settlement risk, no documents ever required. ANONYMOUS: agent name only, $1K/day cap, instant. REGISTERED: add ownerEntity + ownerEmail (self-attested, no verification), $25K/day cap, instant. VERIFIED: add ownerLei (active GLEIF LEI) — DPX calls the public GLEIF API, confirms ACTIVE status, and grants VERIFIED instantly. No documents, no manual review; LEI issuers (LOUs) have already done identity verification and DPX inherits it. VERIFIED agents get institutional caps (governed by mandate), FATF R.16 attestation on every settlement, and full AP2 mandate support. Legal basis: FATF R.16 originator = owner entity (not the agent); MiCA Art. 45/72 accepts LEI; GENIUS Act satisfied by entity attestation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Human-readable name for this agent.
`mandate`	No	Optional AP2-compatible spend mandate (REGISTERED/VERIFIED only). Caps are clamped to tier limits for REGISTERED agents.
`ownerLei`	No	20-char GLEIF LEI. Providing a valid active LEI instantly grants VERIFIED tier — no documents. Get your LEI at gleif.org.
`framework`	No	Agent framework: "claude", "gpt-4o", "gemini", "custom", etc.
`protocols`	No	Supported protocols: ["x402", "ap2", "mcp", "a2a"].
`publicKey`	No	Optional public key for credential signature verification.
`ownerEmail`	No	Contact email. Required for REGISTERED tier ($25K/day cap). Self-attested, not verified.
`ownerEntity`	No	Organization or person that owns/operates this agent. Required for REGISTERED tier.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`agentId`	No	Unique agent identifier (agt_...). Store this.
`kyaLevel`	No
`kyaScore`	No	Trust score 0–100.
`tierCaps`	No	maxNotionalUsd and dailyCapUsd effective for this agent.
`tierNote`	No	Explanation of tier and how to upgrade.
`leiVerified`	No	true if LEI was confirmed via GLEIF API.
`leiEntityName`	No	Legal name from GLEIF record (VERIFIED only).

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate it is not readOnly (write operation), not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds significant behavioral context: no documents required, instant tier grants for ANONYMOUS/REGISTERED, VERIFIED tier via GLEIF API call, caps clamped to tier limits, and no manual review. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-organized paragraph that wastes no words. It front-loads the model name ('KYA — Know Your Agent') and then systematically covers each tier, requirements, caps, and legal basis. Every sentence adds essential information, making it both concise and informative.

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 (8 parameters, nested mandate object, tier logic, external LEI verification), the description is comprehensive. It explains all key behaviors: tier requirements, caps, legal references, and the verification mechanism. The existence of an output schema (not shown) likely covers return value details, but the description does not mention error cases, which is a minor gap.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed field descriptions. The tool description adds semantic value by explaining how parameters map to tiers (e.g., ownerEntity/ownerEmail required for REGISTERED, ownerLei for VERIFIED) and how the mandate behaves (caps clamped). This ties the parameters to the tier model beyond the individual schema 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?

The description explicitly states 'KYA — Know Your Agent. Three-tier registration model' and details the specific tiers (ANONYMOUS, REGISTERED, VERIFIED). This clearly identifies the tool as an agent registration function, distinct from sibling tools like agent.kya_verify and agent.mandate_create, which handle verification and mandate creation respectively.

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 for when to use each registration tier by outlining requirements and caps (e.g., 'ANONYMOUS: agent name only, $1K/day cap, instant'). It implicitly tells users when to choose a higher tier (higher caps require more info). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or contrast with sibling tools (e.g., when to use kya_verify instead of re-registering).

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

All DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement 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

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, especially within their domains (e.g., analytics, compliance, ESG, forecasting). However, a few tools like route and stability.stablecoin_route or settlement.quote and fx.cost_certainty may cause confusion despite distinct descriptions, and the large number of intelligence tools (cascade, aftershock, contagion, etc.) could lead to misselection without careful reading.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming follows a domain prefix pattern (e.g., agent.kya_register, settlement.quote, esg.score), which provides some structure. However, inconsistencies exist: some tools use underscores (batch_settle, flow_check), others are single words (route), and the mix of verb_noun and noun_verb styles (e.g., compliance.pep_screen vs market.fx) reduces predictability.

Tool Count3/5

At 71 tools, the server is very broad in scope, covering compliance, ESG, forecasting, intelligence, treasury management, and more. While each tool seems justified for the complex institutional domain, the sheer number may overwhelm agents and makes the set feel bloated. A more focused scope or tighter tool grouping would improve appropriateness.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is remarkably comprehensive for cross-border settlement, covering end-to-end workflow from quoting, FX analysis, compliance screening, ESG scoring, forecasting, and multiple payment rails (Mercury, Ramp, SWIFT). Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to update a settlement after execution), but core operations are well-covered, and the addition of integration and audit trails enhances completeness.

Resources

Need Help?