DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

integration.status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check the status of a DPX integration verification session. Polls Base mainnet for receipt of the $0.01 USDC handshake payment. Returns "pending" until payment is detected on-chain, then "verified" with the txHash and a Basescan explorer link. Poll every 10–15 seconds after sending the payment.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	verificationId returned by integration.verify.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No
`status`	No	Current verification state.
`txHash`	No	Transaction hash of the $0.01 payment. Present when verified.
`message`	No
`explorer`	No	Basescan URL for the verification transaction.
`verifiedAt`	No	ISO timestamp of on-chain confirmation. Present when status is "verified".
`walletAddress`	No

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Discloses full behavioral details beyond annotations: polls Base mainnet, returns 'pending' until payment detected, then 'verified' with txHash and Basescan link. Also specifies the polling interval. No contradictions with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint).

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, no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value. Perfectly concise for the information conveyed.

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?

With a single parameter, an output schema present, and complete description of return values and polling behavior, the description leaves no gaps for an agent to misuse the tool. Fully sufficient given the tool's complexity.

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%, and the parameter 'id' is described as 'verificationId returned by integration.verify.' The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states the tool checks the status of a DPX integration verification session. Uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource. Does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling integration.verify, but the context implies it is the follow-up status check.

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 explicit polling guidance ('Poll every 10–15 seconds after sending the payment'), which tells the agent when to use this tool. Does not list when not to use it or alternatives, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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?