DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

compliance.pep_screen

Read-onlyIdempotent

Screen an individual by name against the OpenSanctions PEP (Politically Exposed Person) dataset. PEPs include heads of state, senior government officials, senior executives of state-owned enterprises, senior politicians, senior military officers, judicial officials, and their close associates and family members. Returns match confidence, position/role, nationality, related entities, and an overall risk level (HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW / NONE). HIGH or MEDIUM matches require Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD) per FATF Recommendations 12 and 13 before settlement. Optionally filter by country.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	Yes	Full name to screen (e.g. "Mario Draghi").
`country`	No	ISO-2 country code to narrow the search (e.g. "IT"). Optional.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`matched`	No
`matches`	No	Per match: caption, datasets, position, nationality, birthDate, relatedEntities, riskLevel, matchScore
`overallRisk`	No
`totalMatches`	No
`fatfCompliance`	No	EDD required flag, FATF R.12/13 attestation, note

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context: the data source (OpenSanctions), the risk level categories, and the compliance implication (EDD requirement). This goes beyond the annotation basics without contradicting them.

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 moderately concise, covering key aspects in three sentences. It front-loads the main action and purpose, then provides details on output and compliance implications. It could be slightly tighter by removing redundant phrases, but overall it's efficient.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, data source, output details, risk levels, and regulatory implications. The output schema exists, so return values are already specified. This description is complete and sufficient for an agent to decide and invoke it correctly.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds the example 'Mario Draghi' and the ISO-2 country code format, but these are minor enrichments. The baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers the semantics.

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 it screens an individual by name against the OpenSanctions PEP dataset, lists the types of PEPs included, and specifies the output (confidence, role, nationality, related entities, risk level). This distinguishes it from compliance.ubo_chain and regulatory_calendar by focusing on PEP screening specifically.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use the tool (for PEP screening) and specifies that HIGH or MEDIUM matches require EDD per FATF recommendations, implying a compliance workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like ubo_chain for beneficial ownership checks.

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?