DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

intelligence.gender_risk

Read-onlyIdempotent

Gender Risk & Opportunity Intelligence — maps the structural relationship between GBV prevalence, legal discrimination, female labour force participation, and economic outcomes across 18 countries. Returns two independent scores: gbvRiskScore (0–100 suppression risk — high GBV → female LFPR suppression → GDP drag → fiscal stress → sovereign risk premium) and opportunityScore (0–100 reform upside — improving GBV indicators, closing LFPR gender gaps, and strengthening legal rights precede FDI inflows and consumer credit expansion). Five transmission mechanisms. Live FRED economic stress feedback. AI synthesis. Data: WHO GHO, World Bank WDI, FRED. 12h cache. No input required — GET.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`countries`	No	Per-country: gbvRiskScore, opportunityScore, LFPR gap, WBL index, GDP per capita, transmission mechanisms.
`synthesis`	No
`regionalSummary`	No

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds value by detailing the computation logic (GBV → female LFPR suppression → GDP drag → fiscal stress → sovereign risk premium), data sources (WHO GHO, World Bank WDI, FRED), 12h cache, and live FRED feedback. This goes beyond simple safety metadata.

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 information-dense but well-structured, leading with purpose, then explaining the two scores, then providing operational details like data sources and cache. Each clause adds value, although it is longer than typical. The front-loading of purpose is effective.

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?

For a no-input GET tool with an output schema, the description covers the key context: what the scores mean, the underlying transmission mechanisms, data sources, caching behavior, and the fact that no input is required. It is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's functionality and behavior.

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?

The schema has zero parameters, and the description explicitly states 'No input required — GET,' making it clear that no inputs are necessary. This adds an operational detail beyond the empty schema and meets the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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's purpose: it maps the structural relationship between GBV prevalence, legal discrimination, female labour force participation, and economic outcomes across 18 countries, and returns two scores. The verb 'maps' and the specific resource 'Gender Risk & Opportunity Intelligence' clearly distinguish it from sibling intelligence tools like aftershock, contagion, etc.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage context for gender risk and opportunity analysis, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or alternative tools. The phrase 'No input required — GET' is an operational detail, not a usage guideline.

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?