DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

mercury.send

Destructive

Initiate a Mercury bank payment from a connected account. Supports all Mercury payment rails: ACH (0–1 days), Wire (0–1 days), Real-Time Payment / RTP (instant), International Wire (1–3 days), and Check (7–10 days).

For International Wire — the primary DPX cross-border use case — provide SWIFT/BIC code and beneficiary bank details. DPX oracle conditions and FX corridor risk should be checked via oracle.stability and market.fx before executing.

Can optionally tag the payment for automatic DPX on-chain routing — when dpxRoute:true is set, the payment memo includes the DPX executor wallet address and the Mercury webhook picks it up for USDC settlement on Base mainnet.

Use sandbox:true (default) for dry-run testing. Set sandbox:false only when ready to move real funds.

Typical cross-border flow:

market.fx → check FX corridor risk for the destination currency
mercury.accounts → get source accountId
mercury.send (sandbox:true) → confirm payment parameters
settlement.quote → get DPX fee quote for the USDC leg
mercury.send (sandbox:false) → execute (requires explicit user confirmation)
mercury.transactions → verify payment posted

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	Payment memo / description.
`amount`	Yes	Payment amount in USD (or destination currency if specified).
`sandbox`	No	Dry run — returns what would be sent without executing. Default: true. Set false to execute.
`bankCity`	No	Beneficiary bank city.
`bankName`	No	Beneficiary bank name (e.g. "Barclays Bank UK PLC").
`currency`	No	Destination currency for internationalWire (e.g. "GBP", "EUR"). Default USD.
`dpxRoute`	No	If true, appends dpx:<wallet> to the memo — triggers DPX on-chain USDC settlement via the Mercury webhook. Use this to settle the stablecoin leg of a cross-border payment.
`accountId`	Yes	Source Mercury account ID (from mercury.accounts).
`swiftCode`	No	BIC/SWIFT code of beneficiary bank (required for internationalWire without recipientId). E.g. "BARCGB22" for Barclays UK.
`bankAddress`	No	Beneficiary bank street address.
`bankCountry`	No	Beneficiary bank country — ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 (e.g. "GB", "DE", "SG").
`recipientId`	No	Mercury saved recipient ID for internationalWire. Use this if the recipient is already saved in Mercury — skips inline bank detail fields.
`accountNumber`	No	Recipient account number (required for ach/wire/check). Also used for IBAN on internationalWire.
`paymentMethod`	No	Payment rail. rtp = Real-Time Payment (instant, US domestic). internationalWire = cross-border (1–3 days). Default: ach.
`recipientCity`	No	Beneficiary city.
`recipientName`	No	Recipient legal name (required for ach/wire/rtp/check).
`routingNumber`	No	Recipient routing number (required for ach/wire/check).
`recipientEmail`	No	Recipient email (optional — for payment notification).
`recipientAddress`	No	Beneficiary street address.
`recipientCountry`	No	Beneficiary country — ISO 3166-1 alpha-2.
`recipientPostalCode`	No	Beneficiary postal code.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Mercury transaction ID (present when sandbox:false and executed)
`note`	No	Payment memo as sent
`amount`	No	Amount in USD
`status`	No	Transaction status from Mercury
`sandbox`	No	True if this was a dry run
`dpxTagged`	No	Whether the DPX routing tag was appended
`simulation`	No	Dry-run summary (present when sandbox:true)

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint:true (write operation). The description adds critical behavioral details: sandbox mode prevents actual fund movement, dpxRoute triggers a webhook for DPX on-chain settlement, and payment rails have different settlement timeframes. This goes beyond annotations, though it does not disclose potential limits or reversibility.

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 structured into logical sections (rails, international wire, dpxRoute, sandbox, flow) with front-loaded purpose. While it is long (7 paragraphs), every sentence serves a purpose, and the step-by-step flow is highly informative. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but the structure aids agent comprehension.

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's complexity (21 parameters, multiple rails, DPX integration, sandbox mode), the description covers all necessary context: when to use, prerequisites, integration with sibling tools, parameter semantics, and behavioral traits. Output schema exists, so return values are handled. No gaps remain for an agent to execute correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 100% schema coverage, the description still adds significant value: it explains the dpxRoute boolean in detail with its downstream effect, gives SWIFT code examples (BARCGB22), differentiates between recipientId and inline fields, and contextualizes paymentMethod with typical delivery times. This far exceeds the baseline of 3.

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 opens with 'Initiate a Mercury bank payment from a connected account,' providing a specific verb, resource, and scope. It enumerates all payment rails with timelines and distinguishes itself from siblings like mercury.transactions (verify) and settlement.quote (fee quote). This clearly differentiates what the tool does from the many sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance: sandbox:true for dry-run, sandbox:false for real funds; for International Wire, it recommends checking oracle.stability and market.fx first. It includes a six-step typical cross-border flow referencing sibling tools, making it unambiguous when and how to use this tool versus alternatives.

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?