DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

esg.watch

Register an entity for ongoing ESG monitoring. DPX checks the score daily and fires a webhook when the composite score shifts by ≥ thresholdPoints. Satisfies MiCA Article 72 ongoing monitoring requirements. Returns a watchId for status checks and cancellation. Webhook payload includes previous/current score, delta, and tier change.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`lei`	Yes	20-character GLEIF LEI of the entity to monitor.
`webhookUrl`	Yes	HTTPS URL to POST score change alerts to. Must be HTTPS.
`thresholdPoints`	No	Fire webhook if composite score changes by ≥ N points. Default 5. Minimum 1.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`lei`	No
`watchId`	No	UUID — use to check status (GET /esg/watch/:id) or cancel (DELETE /esg/watch/:id)
`createdAt`	No
`entityName`	No
`baselineTier`	No
`baselineScore`	No	Composite score at registration (used as first comparison point)

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, already indicating a mutation with no destruction. The description adds significant behavioral context: daily frequency, threshold-based webhook triggering, webhook payload contents (previous/current score, delta, tier change), and the return of a watchId. This goes well beyond the annotations 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 composed of five sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, mechanism, regulatory context, return value, and payload details. While slightly verbose, every sentence adds value, and there is no filler. Front-loading is adequate.

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 the tool complexity (3 params, output schema exists per context signals, annotations present), the description covers core aspects: purpose, trigger conditions, frequency, return value, and payload structure. It omits webhook retry behavior, cancellation method, and concurrency limits, but these are secondary given the output schema likely handles response details.

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%; all three parameters (lei, webhookUrl, thresholdPoints) are documented in the schema. The description does not add new meaning to these parameters beyond referencing thresholdPoints in the webhook condition. It meets the baseline but provides no extra value for parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Register an entity for ongoing ESG monitoring.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like esg.score (one-time score), esg.trend (historical trend), and esg.batch (batch operations) by emphasizing 'ongoing' and webhook-based alerts.

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 implies usage for continuous monitoring needs (daily checks, webhook on threshold) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like esg.score or esg.portfolio. No exclusions or prerequisite conditions are given, so it's clear but not comprehensive.

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?