DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

card.positions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Plan treasury settlement for a crypto card program. Accepts net positions per corridor (e.g. USD-BRL: $2.3M, USD-EUR: €450K) and returns an optimal settlement plan — which corridors to settle now vs. hold, which stablecoin to use per corridor, and estimated all-in fee. No settlement is executed. Call this before card.settle to review the plan. Free.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`positions`	Yes	Array of net positions. Each: { corridor: "USD-BRL", netAmountUsd: 2300000, recipientAddress?: "0x..." }
`settlementDate`	No	Settlement date ISO string (defaults to today UTC). E.g. "2026-08-09".

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context by explicitly stating 'No settlement is executed' and describing the output format (optimal plan). No contradiction 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, input/output specifics, and usage guidance plus cost indication. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explicitly lists what the tool returns: 'which corridors to settle now vs. hold, which stablecoin to use per corridor, and estimated all-in fee.' It also gives input examples and clarifies no execution occurs. This is complete for a read-only planning tool with strong annotations.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already well-documented. The description's example ('USD-BRL: $2.3M, USD-EUR: €450K') illustrates the positions format but does not add semantics beyond the schema, which includes the field names and example object.

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 verb 'Plan' and resource 'treasury settlement for a crypto card program' are specific and actionable. It explicitly distinguishes itself from card.settle by stating 'Call this before card.settle to review the plan', and it lists the concrete output (corridors, stablecoins, fee).

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 clearly states when to use this tool: 'Call this before card.settle to review the plan.' It also clarifies the non-execution behavior ('No settlement is executed'), preventing misuse. It does not enumerate alternatives like batch_settle or settlement.quote, but the primary sibling is addressed.

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?