DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

esg.score

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the live counterparty risk score (ESG-denominated) for a wallet address or the protocol default. Returns Environmental, Social, and Governance risk scores (0–100 each), composite weighted average, and the compliance-adjusted settlement fee percentage this score produces. Updated hourly from 6 institutional data sources: WorldBank, IMF, OECD, UN SDG API, ClimateMonitor, and SEC EDGAR. Required by EU SFDR Principal Adverse Impact reporting and CSRD financed emissions disclosure for institutional clients.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	No	Wallet address (0x...) to score. Omit for protocol default.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tier`	No	ESG tier label
`feePct`	No	ESG fee percentage applied at settlement
`social`	No	Social score 0–100
`address`	No	Scored wallet address or "default"
`sources`	No	Data sources used
`esgScore`	No	Composite ESG score 0–100
`updatedAt`	No	ISO 8601 last update timestamp
`governance`	No	Governance score 0–100
`environmental`	No	Environmental score 0–100

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: data is live and updated hourly from six institutional sources. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it does not mention rate limits or error behavior.

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 compact paragraph of five sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then efficiently lists return fields, data sources, and regulatory context. No wasted words.

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 simplicity (one optional param, output schema exists, rich annotations), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, output composition, update frequency, data sources, and regulatory use cases. It is fully adequate for an agent to understand and invoke the tool 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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of the 'address' parameter. The description slightly reinforces the protocol default behavior but does not add new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns a live ESG counterparty risk score for a wallet address or protocol default, listing specific output fields (E, S, G scores, composite, settlement fee). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on single-entity live scoring, contrasting with batch or portfolio tools.

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 indicates when to use (for a single address or default, and for EU SFDR/CSRD reporting) but does not explicitly contrast with related sibling tools like esg.batch or esg.lookup. It lacks guidance on when not to use this tool.

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?