DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

fees.verify

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify that the off-chain fee quote matches what the on-chain DPXSettlementRouter contract will charge. Returns feesMatch (true/false). Call after get_quote and before settle to confirm fee integrity.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`hasFx`	No	Cross-currency settlement?
`esgScore`	No	ESG score 0–100
`amountUsd`	Yes	Settlement amount in USD

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`delta`	No	Absolute difference in basis points
`feesMatch`	No	True if off-chain quote matches on-chain contract
`onChainFee`	No
`offChainFee`	No
`recommendation`	No	PROCEED \| INVESTIGATE

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining the return value (feesMatch boolean) and the verification context, which aligns with the non-destructive read operation. No contradictions; the description complements the annotations well.

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: first sentence states the purpose, second sentence states the return value and workflow order. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff. Front-loaded with the core action. Excellent conciseness.

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?

The description covers the purpose, return value, and workflow placement. An output schema exists, so return value details are complete. The explanation of how parameters affect verification is left to the schema, which is acceptable. Slight gap: it doesn't mention that the tool is safe to call multiple times, but the idempotentHint annotation covers that. Overall, sufficient for an agent to use 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (hasFx, esgScore, amountUsd). It implies these are inputs for fee verification, but no extra semantic detail is provided. The schema already explains each parameter adequately.

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?

Clearly states the tool's purpose: verify that an off-chain fee quote matches the on-chain DPXSettlementRouter charge. It specifies the verb 'verify', the resource (fee quote vs on-chain), and the return value (feesMatch boolean). The workflow context 'after get_quote and before settle' distinguishes it from sibling fee tools like fees.compare and fees.schedule, which serve different purposes.

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 recommends calling this tool after get_quote and before settle, providing clear positioning in a workflow. It does not directly contrast with alternatives (e.g., fees.compare or fees.schedule), but the workflow guidance is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use it.

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?