DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

market.fx

Read-onlyIdempotent

FX Settlement Corridor Intelligence — per-pair execution risk assessment for 10 major currency corridors against USD: EUR, GBP, JPY, CAD, AUD, CHF, MXN, BRL, CNY, INR. Maps live FRED spot rates to settlement advice for each pair: SETTLE_NOW / SETTLE_WITH_HEDGE / DELAY_SHORT / DELAY_REVIEW / AVOID. Returns DXY dollar regime (STRONG_DOLLAR / NORMAL / WEAK_DOLLAR), regional block risk rollup (G4, Americas, Asia-Pacific), best corridors to settle through now, worst corridors to avoid or hedge, and recommended actions. Distinct from oracle.stability (which covers peg deviation and macro settlement gates) — this tool answers "which currency pairs are risky to settle through right now?" Data: FRED spot rates (DEXUSEU, DEXUSUK, DEXJPUS, etc.), DXY (DTWEXBGS). 1h cache.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`dxy`	No	DXY value, trend, regime, and settlement impact summary.
`corridors`	No	Per-pair risk, spot rate, advice, and settlement cost.
`overallRisk`	No	FAVORABLE / NORMAL / MODERATE / HIGH / CRITICAL
`bestCorridors`	No	Pairs with NORMAL or FAVORABLE risk — settle now.
`worstCorridors`	No	Pairs with HIGH or CRITICAL risk — delay or hedge.
`executiveSummary`	No	Plain-language summary of FX settlement conditions.
`recommendedActions`	No	Actionable guidance for treasury teams.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by detailing the data source (FRED spot rates, DXY), the return structure (advice per pair, DXY regime, regional rollup, best/worst corridors), and the 1h cache. This goes beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 a single paragraph that efficiently conveys purpose, scope, outputs, and differentiation. Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) for quick scanning. Still, it is not verbose.

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 and a rich output schema (not shown but known), the description fully covers what the agent needs: the currency pairs, output categories, DXY regime, regional rollup, best/worst corridors, data sources, and cache policy. It is complete for effective invocation.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description implicitly explains that no parameters are needed—the tool provides a fixed set of intelligence.

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: per-pair execution risk assessment for 10 major currency corridors against USD. It specifies the exact output categories (SETTLE_NOW, etc.) and distinguishes from oracle.stability, making it unambiguous and distinct from siblings.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: to answer 'which currency pairs are risky to settle through right now?' and contrasts it with oracle.stability. However, it does not differentiate from other closely related siblings like fx.corridors or fx.rate, which limits full guidance.

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?