DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

compliance.ubo_chain

Read-onlyIdempotent

Trace the beneficial ownership chain for any legal entity up to 3 levels deep using GLEIF relationship records, then screen every node in the chain against the OpenSanctions consolidated sanctions list (OFAC SDN, EU, UN, UK OFSI). Returns chain structure (SUBJECT → DIRECT_PARENT → ULTIMATE_PARENT), per-node sanctions status, LEI lapse flags, overall CLEAR / REVIEW_REQUIRED / BLOCKED verdict, and FATF R.16 beneficial ownership compliance attestation. Required for correspondent banking due diligence, FATF R.12/13 UBO identification, and MiCA Article 72 counterparty risk management.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lei`	Yes	20-character GLEIF LEI of the entity to trace (e.g. "2594007XIACKNMUAW223").
`deep`	No	Set true to attempt 3-level traversal including intermediate nodes. Default false (direct + ultimate parent only).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`chain`	No	Per-node: level, role, lei, entityName, country, leiStatus, sanctions (matched, score, datasets), riskFlag
`fatfR16`	No	FATF R.16 beneficial ownership compliance attestation
`riskFlags`	No	Nodes with sanctions hits or lapsed LEIs
`chainDepth`	No
`overallStatus`	No
`ultimateBeneficialOwner`	No	lei, entityName, country, leiStatus of the UBO

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant behavioral details: traversal depth, specific sanctions lists (OFAC SDN, EU, UN, UK OFSI), return structure (chain, sanctions status, LEI lapse, verdict, FATF attestation). No contradictions.

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 paragraph of four sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 complexity, the description covers the purpose, methodology, output structure, and compliance use cases. It mentions all key return fields (chain, status, flags, verdict, attestation). The output schema exists, so the description does not need to repeat every field.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters (lei, deep). The description adds context by explaining the 'deep' parameter's effect (3-level vs. direct+ultimate) and implying the lei format. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 traces the beneficial ownership chain up to 3 levels deep and screens nodes against sanctions lists. It specifies the verb 'trace' and the resource 'beneficial ownership chain', and distinguishes itself from siblings like compliance.pep_screen by focusing on UBO chain and sanctions.

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 explicitly lists required use cases: correspondent banking due diligence, FATF R.12/13 UBO identification, and MiCA Article 72 risk management. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to decide.

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?