DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

fees.compare

Read-only

Compare DPX settlement cost against Stripe cross-border (5.4% + $0.30), Wise (0.40–1.50%), Ripple ODL (0.20–0.50%), Lightspark, SWIFT (2.00–5.00%), PayPal, and bank wire. Returns dollar savings vs each at the current DPX all-in rate (~2.035% typical). Also returns GENIUS Act and MiCA compliance status for each competitor.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`hasFx`	No	Cross-currency? Adds 0.40% FX fee.
`esgScore`	No	ESG score 0–100
`amountUsd`	Yes	Settlement amount in USD

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`dpx`	No
`note`	No	Context note on comparison methodology
`amountUsd`	No	Settlement amount compared
`comparison`	No	Per-competitor comparison keyed by competitor ID

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description adds behavioral context: it returns dollar savings and compliance statuses. No detail on data freshness or rate assumptions, but the core of what it does and does not modify is clear.

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?

Two sentences, information-dense: enumerates competitors, states what is returned (savings, compliance). No wasted words. Front-loaded effectively.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to describe return values in detail. It covers the key input parameter's usage, lists competitors, and mentions compliance outputs. Fully adequate for a well-structured tool with rich schema and annotations.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that 'hasFx' incurs an 'adds 0.40% FX fee,' which is not in the parameter description. This provides useful context for how the parameter affects the comparison logic.

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?

Describes a specific verb (compare) on a specific resource (DPX settlement cost) against an enumerated set of competitors. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'fees.schedule' (likely a schedule, not a comparison) or 'fees.verify' (verification, not comparison).

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?

Provides clear context that the tool compares costs and returns savings and compliance status. However, does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among siblings—though the sibling set is large, and no direct alternatives for fee comparison are obvious.

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?