DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

integration.verify

Initiate a $0.01 USDC onboarding handshake for a new DPX integration. Returns the DPX treasury address and payment instructions. The client sends $0.01 USDC on Base mainnet to confirm their wallet is funded and settlement rails are clear. Call integration.status to poll for confirmation. Required for all new integrations before production settlements are enabled.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`apiKey`	No	Optional: the DPX API key being registered for this integration. Stored as a hash — never logged in plaintext.
`walletAddress`	Yes	The client wallet address (0x...) that will send the $0.01 verification payment.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	No	Always "pending" on creation.
`payment`	No
`polling`	No
`expiresAt`	No	ISO timestamp — verification window closes after 24 hours.
`verificationId`	No	Session ID — use with integration.status to poll for payment confirmation.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description reveals that the tool initiates a USDC payment handshake and returns treasury address and payment instructions, which is useful beyond annotations. However, it does not clarify idempotency or behavior on repeated calls, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

The description is concise at 4 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. Excellent structure.

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 tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description fully covers the purpose, flow, return value, and next steps. No additional information is needed.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters already described. The description adds a small detail about apiKey being hashed but doesn't significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Initiate' and the resource 'onboarding handshake for a new DPX integration.' It distinguishes from the sibling tool integration.status by mentioning polling for confirmation.

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 states 'Required for all new integrations before production settlements are enabled' and advises to call integration.status to poll for confirmation. It provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly exclude other scenarios.

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?