DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

intelligence.aftershock

Read-onlyIdempotent

Aftershock Intelligence — models the secondary waves that follow a primary cascade event. Takes a primary shock (origin node, event type, magnitude, elapsed hours) and returns three aftershock waves: Wave 1 (0–72h immediate secondary effects), Wave 2 (1–4 weeks policy response distortions), Wave 3 (1–6 months structural changes now permanently locked in). Identifies which nodes are rebounding, which face amplified pressure, and which are structurally altered. Companion to market.cascade — run cascade first, then aftershock to see the full picture. POST with origin, eventType, magnitude, elapsedHours.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`origin`	Yes	Origin node ID from the primary cascade (e.g. "geo.conflict", "climate.drought").
`eventType`	No	Description of the primary event.
`magnitude`	Yes	Primary shock magnitude 1–100.
`elapsedHours`	No	Hours elapsed since the primary event. Default 24.
`horizonHours`	No	Forward horizon to model in hours. Default 4320 (6 months).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`wave1`	No	Immediate (0–72h): rebound, amplified, structural nodes.
`wave2`	No	Policy response phase (1–4 weeks).
`wave3`	No	Structural lock-in (1–6 months).
`synthesis`	No

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but description goes far beyond: details three specific waves with time windows, identifies what analysis is returned (rebounding nodes, amplified pressure, structural changes), and explains it is a POST operation. No annotation contradiction. Full behavioral disclosure for a modeling tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single dense paragraph of ~100 words covering purpose, output, usage, and parameters. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Slightly verbose with the wave details but every sentence earns its place. Could be split into two sentences for clarity without losing content.

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 complexity (5 parameters, output schema present, rich annotations), the description is complete. Output schema handles return value documentation, so the description need not explain output format. It covers prerequisite, input context, behavioral traits, and parameter semantics thoroughly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds significant value by explaining how parameters map to the cascade model context. 'origin' is contextualized as 'from the primary cascade', 'magnitude' is placed in scale 1–100, and default values are given for elapsedHours and horizonHours. Description also reveals horizonHours exists (not shown in param list but implied by '4320 (6 months)').

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 it models aftershock waves from a primary cascade event, with specific verb 'models' and resource 'secondary waves'. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'intelligence.*' tools like intelligence.contagion, intelligence.tectonic, and market.cascade, explicitly noting it runs after market.cascade.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use: 'run cascade first, then aftershock to see the full picture.' Names companion tool market.cascade as prerequisite, providing clear workflow guidance. Implies not for first-order event modeling.

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?