DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

intelligence.tectonic

Read-onlyIdempotent

Tectonic Intelligence — maps slow-moving structural stress across 22 fault lines in 5 domains (demographic, fiscal, environmental, infrastructure, geopolitical). Each node carries current stress (0–100), accumulation rate (%/yr), tipping threshold, and estimated years to rupture. Where market.cascade traces an acute shock, tectonic surfaces latent pressure before it ruptures. Returns per-node stress state, rupture sequence, horizon timeline, and AI synthesis briefing. No input required — GET.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`synthesis`	No	AI briefing on the most dangerous structural accumulations.
`faultLines`	No	Per-node: domain, label, stress, accumulationRate, yearsToRupture, tippingThreshold.
`systemStress`	No	Composite tectonic stress 0–100.
`ruptureSequence`	No	Ordered fault lines by proximity to rupture.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing the return structure (per-node stress state, rupture sequence, horizon timeline, AI synthesis briefing) and confirming it is a GET request with no input. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is five sentences, each contributing distinct value: domain & scope, node attributes, sibling contrast, output summary, and input requirement. It is well-structured, front-loaded, and contains no fluff.

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 tool has no parameters, has an output schema, and rich annotations, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, data composition, outputs, and usage context. The sibling contrast and domain listing provide sufficient context for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description explicitly states 'No input required', which is sufficient. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description meets it.

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 maps slow-moving structural stress across 22 fault lines in 5 domains, provides specific metrics per node, and explicitly contrasts with the sibling tool market.cascade. The verb+resource is specific and unambiguous.

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 gives a direct comparison with market.cascade (acute shock vs. latent pressure), helping the agent choose between them. It also states 'No input required', simplifying usage. However, it does not explicitly exclude other intelligence tools (e.g., aftershock, contagion) or provide broader usage criteria.

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?