DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

intelligence.contagion

Read-onlyIdempotent

Contagion Intelligence — simulates how a macro or financial shock spreads through 30 nodes across 6 domains (financial systems, real economies, commodity networks, policy anchors, social systems, physical infrastructure) using an epidemiological R-value model. Returns system R trajectory, per-epoch spread map, superspreader nodes, containment forecast, and AI briefing. R < 1.0 = self-limiting; R ≥ 1.0 = expanding. Call /contagion/nodes first to discover valid origin IDs. POST with origin and magnitude.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`origin`	No	Origin node ID. Call intelligence.contagion with listNodes:true to discover valid IDs.
`listNodes`	No	If true, returns all valid origin node IDs instead of running a simulation.
`magnitude`	No	Initial shock magnitude 1–100.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`systemR`	No	System-level R value. ≥1.0 means spreading.
`spreadMap`	No	Per-epoch infection state across all nodes.
`synthesis`	No
`containment`	No	Forecast of when/if containment is achieved.
`superspreaders`	No	Nodes with highest R contribution.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already convey it's a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining the R-value model, the 6 domains, and the specific output components (system R trajectory, spread map, superspreader nodes, containment forecast, AI briefing). No contradiction with annotations.

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 approximately 80 words across 4 sentences, front-loading the purpose and model. Every sentence adds value except the last two ('Call /contagion/nodes...' and 'POST with origin...') which are critical usage guidance but could potentially be more concise if merged. Still well-structured and efficient.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (alleviating need to describe return format), 3 parameters with 100% schema coverage, and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains the core model, usage flow, and parameter behavior. Minor gap: it doesn't explain what the 'AI briefing' output contains, but with an output schema this is acceptable.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly mentioning 'origin' parameter context (call /contagion/nodes first), explaining that listNodes bypasses simulation, and giving magnitude range 1–100. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions, justifying a 4.

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 tool simulates how a macro or financial shock spreads using an epidemiological R-value model, specifying the 30 nodes across 6 domains. It distinguishes itself from siblings like intelligence.tectonic (which likely models different phenomena) by detailing the unique R-value modeling approach and the specific output components (system R trajectory, spread map, etc.).

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 provides explicit guidance to call /contagion/nodes first to discover valid origin IDs, and explains how to use listNodes:true for discovery. It interprets the R-value threshold (R < 1.0 = self-limiting; R ≥ 1.0 = expanding). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus siblings like intelligence.resonance or intelligence.aftershock, or what distinguishes contagion from those.

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?