DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

market.shipping

Read-onlyIdempotent

Shipping & Logistics Stress Intelligence — composite view of global freight market conditions across ocean, air, truck, and rail. Tracks energy-driven shipping costs (Brent crude, diesel), 8 key global trade routes with disruption status, and trade flow signals. Returns a settlementRelevance section mapping logistics conditions to cross-border payment corridor risk: invoice delay risk, trade finance stress, and affected corridors. Useful for treasury teams with supply chain financing exposure, trade finance desks, and agents pricing cross-border payments on goods-backed corridors. Data: FRED (Brent crude), EIA (US diesel). 4h cache.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`regime`	No	STABLE / MODERATE / ELEVATED / SEVERE_DISRUPTION
`keyRoutes`	No	Per-route disruption status and stress score.
`synthesis`	No	Narrative briefing on freight conditions and implications.
`energyCost`	No	Brent crude, diesel price, marine fuel proxy.
`freightModes`	No	Per-mode (ocean/air/truck/rail) cost index and stress signal.
`compositeScore`	No	Composite stress score 0–100 (higher = more stress).
`settlementRelevance`	No	Invoice delay risk, trade finance stress, affected corridors.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), the description adds critical behavioral details: data sources (FRED, EIA), a 4-hour cache, the output structure including a 'settlementRelevance' section with specific risk indicators (invoice delay risk, trade finance stress, affected corridors). This fully discloses expected behavior.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then details what is tracked, output structure, use cases, data sources, and cache policy. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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 and a complex output (with an output schema available), the description provides all necessary context: data origin, refresh cadence, output sections, and relevant business applications. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when and why to invoke this tool.

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 is empty (0 parameters), so the description's role is to explain the tool's behavior. It does this effectively, stating the tool provides a composite view without needing user input. Baseline 4 applies per the rule for zero parameters, and the description adds meaning by explaining the fixed output.

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 explicitly states the tool provides a 'composite view of global freight market conditions across ocean, air, truck, and rail' and details what it tracks (energy costs, trade routes, disruption status, trade flow signals). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like market.cascade or market.fx, and from other intelligence tools.

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 identifies specific target users (treasury teams, trade finance desks, agents pricing cross-border payments) and business contexts (supply chain financing, goods-backed corridors). While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use or compare to alternatives, the use cases are clearly scoped.

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?