DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

card.settle

Execute treasury settlement for a crypto card program. Takes the same positions array as card.positions but executes all settlements via DPX batch — compliance-gated, oracle-priced, stablecoin-routed. Each position requires a recipientAddress. Use sandbox:true for testing. Returns per-corridor settlement results and a summary.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sandbox`	No	true = test mode, no on-chain execution. Default true — set false only for live execution.
`positions`	Yes	Array of net positions. Each: { corridor: "USD-BRL", netAmountUsd: 2300000, recipientAddress: "0x..." }. recipientAddress is required for every position.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: compliance-gated, oracle-priced, stablecoin-routed execution, and sandbox default behavior. Annotations declare destructiveHint=false but the description clarifies that live execution only occurs with sandbox:false, aligning with the annotation. No contradictions found.

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?

The description is a single paragraph of moderate length covering essential points. It is efficient with no wasted words, though a slightly more structured layout (e.g., bullet points) could improve scanability.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately mentions return value type (per-corridor results and summary). It covers purpose, parameters, execution path, and sandbox mode. Minor gaps: missing error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., card.positions availability) and relationship to compliance checks.

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%, and the schema already provides structured parameter descriptions. The description adds extra context: the positions array format aligns with card.positions, and recipientAddress is required per position. This adds value beyond the schema without redundancy.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'execute treasury settlement' and the resource 'crypto card program'. It references the sibling tool card.positions to define input structure, distinguishing itself by noting the execution path via DPX batch. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar settlement tools like batch_settle or settlement.execute, which slightly reduces clarity.

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?

The description implies usage context by stating it takes the same positions as card.positions and mentions sandbox mode for testing. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., batch_settle, settlement.execute), and lacks 'when not to use' or prerequisite conditions.

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?