DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

invoice.create

Create an agent-to-agent invoice. Agent A calls this to request payment from Agent B. Returns an invoiceId and payUrl — Agent B calls invoice.pay with the invoiceId to settle. Invoice expires after ttlSeconds (default 24h).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`amount`	Yes	Invoice amount in source currency
`currency`	No	Source currency code (default: USD)
`ttlSeconds`	No	Invoice TTL in seconds (default: 86400 = 24h)
`callbackUrl`	No	URL to notify when invoice is paid
`description`	No	Human-readable payment description
`recipientAddress`	No	Payee wallet address (can also be provided at pay time)
`destinationCurrency`	No	Destination currency (default: same as currency)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`payUrl`	No	Direct URL to pay this invoice
`status`	No	OPEN \| PAID \| EXPIRED
`expiresAt`	No
`invoiceId`	No	UUID — pass to invoice.get or invoice.pay

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description reveals that the tool creates an invoice (write behavior) and returns an invoiceId and payUrl, and that invoices expire. With annotations providing no safety hints, the description adds moderate transparency but does not discuss idempotency, error cases, authentication requirements, or side effects beyond creation. 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?

Three sentences deliver the core purpose, workflow, return values, and expiration. No filler words. Information is front-loaded, and each sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the main flow, expiration, and references the complementary invoice.pay tool. Given the output schema exists (not shown), it is acceptable that return values are not fully detailed. However, it does not mention what happens if the invoice is never paid, duplicate creation attempts, or how the callbackUrl fits in. Slightly incomplete for a tool with 7 parameters and no error notes.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra semantic details for individual parameters beyond the schema descriptions. It does provide flow context (Agent A requests payment from Agent B) which indirectly helps interpret parameters like recipientAddress, but this is not explicit parameter-level enrichment.

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 creates an agent-to-agent invoice, specifies which agent initiates (Agent A) and which pays (Agent B), and mentions the returned invoiceId and payUrl. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like invoice.pay.

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 a clear workflow: Agent A creates the invoice, Agent B pays via invoice.pay. It mentions expiration and default TTL. However, it could explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., do not use to pay an invoice) and mention alternatives beyond invoice.pay.

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?