DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

dpx.metrics

Read-onlyIdempotent

Live performance metrics for the DPX settlement infrastructure — pulled directly from production telemetry. Returns request volumes, error rates, growth trends, per-service breakdown, and spike analysis across all active DPX workers. Free — designed for investor due diligence, analyst queries, and Standard Metrics / portfolio management integrations. No auth required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`window`	No	Time window for metrics. "7d" = last 7 days, "30d" = last 30 days. Default: 30d.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`window`	No
`peakDay`	No
`summary`	No
`services`	No
`errorRate`	No
`weeklyTrend`	No
`dailyAverage`	No
`totalRequests`	No

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that data comes 'directly from production telemetry' and notes it's 'free' and requires 'no auth,' providing valuable context beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: defining the tool, listing outputs, and stating usage context. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the second sentence could be slightly tighter.

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 has only one simple parameter, output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description is fully complete. It explains the data source, content, and usage context, leaving no obvious gaps for agent invocation.

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 a well-described parameter (window). The description doesn't rehash the parameter but adds context about the metric types returned, which complements the schema. The single parameter is clearly documented in the schema.

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 tool returns live performance metrics for DPX settlement infrastructure, listing specific data types (request volumes, error rates, etc.). It distinguishes by targeting investor due diligence and portfolio management use cases, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from any specific sibling tool.

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 mentions it's free and requires no auth, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like settlement.status or analytics.overview. Use context is implied (investor queries, due diligence), but no exclusions or comparisons to siblings are given.

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?