DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

fx.cost_certainty

Read-only

All-in settlement cost quote for cross-border payments. CFO-grade output: exact amount received in target currency after rail fees, 48h FX cost variance expressed in dollars, corridor stability overlay, and optimal execution window. Answers "if I send $X today, what does my counterparty receive net of everything, and how certain is that number?" Requires x402 micropayment.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes	Target currency ISO 4217 (e.g. BRL)
`lei`	No	Optional counterparty LEI for ESG-adjusted fee tier
`from`	Yes	Source currency ISO 4217 (e.g. USD)
`amount`	Yes	Amount to send
`amountCurrency`	No	Currency of the amount (defaults to from)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`railFees`	No	All-in fee breakdown in USD
`settlement`	No	Sent and received amounts with live FX rate
`costCertainty`	No	48h volatility, uncertainty in USD, received range in target currency
`corridorIntelligence`	No	Corridor stability score, regulatory flags, cascade level
`executionRecommendation`	No	SETTLE_NOW / DELAY_24H / DELAY_48H with best execution window UTC

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is a safe, read-only query. The description reinforces this as a quote lookup but adds behavioral traits: the output is CFO-grade with specific components (exact amount, 48h variance in dollars, corridor stability, optimal window). Also discloses the x402 micropayment, which annotations do not cover.

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 pack essential market position, usage scenario, and cost requirement with zero fluff. Front-loaded with the main action ('All-in settlement cost quote for cross-border payments') immediately.

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?

With 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the baseline is high. The description completes the picture by stating the output components (exact amount, variance, corridor, window) and the payment requirement. However, it does not mention whether the quote expires or how to use the output schema for further actions.

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% (all 5 parameters documented). The description adds value beyond schema by explaining the purpose of the output parameters (variance in dollars, corridor stability overlay), but it does not add new meaning to individual input parameters like 'lei' for ESG-adjusted fee tier beyond the schema.

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 specific verbs ('cost quote for cross-border payments') and clearly names the resource ('all-in settlement cost' for FX). It differentiates from siblings like 'fx.rate' (simple rate lookup) and 'stability.settlement_window' (timing vs cost) by emphasizing 'cost certainty' and net settlement amount.

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 hints at when to use this tool by answering 'if I send $X today, what does my counterparty receive net of everything?' and includes key context: requires a micropayment (x402). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for simple rate checks use fx.rate).

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?