DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

fx.corridors

Read-onlyIdempotent

All 60+ currency corridors with current stability tier, daily volatility estimate, and regulatory flags. Sort is best-first (OPTIMAL → ADVERSE). Use to compare corridors before choosing a payment route — e.g. "which LATAM corridor is most stable for a $2M payment this week?" Filter by source currency with the from parameter. Free.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`from`	No	Optional: filter to corridors starting from this currency (e.g. USD)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`summary`	No	Count by tier: OPTIMAL / FAVORABLE / CAUTION / ELEVATED_RISK / ADVERSE
`corridors`	No	Corridors sorted best-first with score, tier, vol, regulatory flags
`corridorCount`	No

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds context about the data returned (stability tier, volatility, regulatory flags) and sort order, but does not reveal additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: first states what the tool returns, second explains sort order, third gives usage guidance and filter instruction. No wasted words, well front-loaded.

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 simple interface (one optional param, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary information: what data is returned, sort order, filtering, and a concrete use case. It is fully sufficient for an agent to decide when to call this tool.

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 already describes the single optional parameter 'from' with a clear example. Description reiterates this ('Filter by source currency with the from parameter') but adds no new semantic information. With 100% schema coverage, 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?

Description clearly states it lists all 60+ currency corridors with stability tier, volatility, and regulatory flags. It distinguishes from siblings like stability.corridor or fx.rate by positioning itself as a broad comparison tool for choosing payment routes, with an example query.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use to compare corridors before choosing a payment route' and provides a concrete example. It explains filtering by source currency. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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?