DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

intelligence.resonance

Read-onlyIdempotent

Resonance Intelligence — detects when multiple independent macro forces are oscillating in phase across 28 signals in 5 domains, amplifying each other rather than cancelling. A single shock is manageable; resonance turns a bad quarter into a systemic crisis. Returns per-signal phase angles, resonance clusters (groups of 3+ aligned signals), amplitude amplification factor, system resonance score (0–100), and historical danger-zone comparison to crisis precedents (2008, 2011, 2020, 1997 EM). No input required — GET.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`synthesis`	No
`dangerZoneMatch`	No	Similarity to historical crisis resonance patterns.
`resonanceClusters`	No	Groups of 3+ signals in mutual resonance.
`amplificationFactor`	No	Constructive interference gain across dominant cluster.
`systemResonanceScore`	No	0–100. Higher = more dangerous in-phase alignment.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds value by explaining the concept of resonance, the return data, and that no input is required. It is consistent with annotations and adds behavioral context beyond them.

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 four sentences, all relevant. It front-loads the definition and then provides implications and return details. Could be slightly more concise, but no waste.

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 no parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, what it returns (including specific outputs like phase angles and resonance clusters), and its read-only nature.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description explicitly states 'No input required — GET', which is sufficient. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no further parameter meaning but confirms the absence.

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 detects resonance among macro forces, with specific verb 'detects' and resource 'Resonance Intelligence'. It distinguishes from siblings like intelligence.aftershock and intelligence.contagion by focusing on phase oscillation across 28 signals in 5 domains.

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 it's a read-only diagnostic tool but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The sibling tools are not compared, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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?