DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

agent.mandate_create

Create or update an AP2-compatible spend mandate for a REGISTERED or VERIFIED DPX agent. Sets per-agent settlement constraints: max notional per settlement, daily cap, optional counterparty whitelist (LEIs or wallets), allowed currency pairs, ESG floor, and expiry. ANONYMOUS agents cannot hold mandates — register with ownerEntity + ownerEmail first. REGISTERED agents have mandate caps clamped to their tier limit ($25K). VERIFIED agents (GLEIF LEI confirmed) set their own caps with no platform ceiling. Mandate is AP2-formatted for interoperability with Google Agent Payments Protocol.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`agentId`	Yes	Agent ID from agent.kya_register.
`esgFloor`	No	Min counterparty ESG score (0 = no floor).
`issuedBy`	No	Organization issuing this mandate.
`expiresAt`	No	Unix timestamp for mandate expiry.
`dailyCapUsd`	Yes	Max USD per calendar day (UTC).
`currencyPairs`	No	Allowed pairs e.g. ["USD\|EUR"]. Empty = any pair.
`maxNotionalUsd`	Yes	Max USD per single settlement.
`counterpartyWhitelist`	No	LEIs or wallet addresses. Empty = any counterparty.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`agentId`	No
`mandate`	No	Full mandate object.
`mandateId`	No	Unique mandate ID (mnd_...).
`ap2Compatible`	No
`effectiveCaps`	No	Actual caps after tier clamping.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, which is consistent with a write operation. The description goes beyond annotations by explaining tier-based cap clamping (REGISTERED $25K, VERIFIED no ceiling), expiry, and AP2 formatting. This adds significant behavioral context not available in annotations alone.

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 dense paragraph, front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. It efficiently communicates constraints, prerequisites, and interoperability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 8 parameters, 3 required, and existing output schema, the description covers agent eligibility, tier caps, counterparty list, currency pairs, ESG floor, and expiry. It is complete for a complex financial tool, leaving no major gaps in context.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining how parameters relate to agent tiers (e.g., maxNotionalUsd clamped for REGISTERED, no ceiling for VERIFIED), which enriches the 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 clearly states the tool creates or updates an AP2-compatible spend mandate for registered or verified DPX agents. It uses specific verbs ('Create or update') and resource ('spend mandate'), and differentiates from siblings like reg, verify, settle by focusing on mandate setup constraints.

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 on when to use (for registered or verified agents) and when not (anonymous agents), and includes prerequisites (register with ownerEntity+ownerEmail). However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, which is a minor gap.

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?