DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

mercury.sweep

Read-onlyIdempotent

Treasury float yield routing analysis for idle Mercury bank balances. Computes how much can be swept above a reserve threshold, then evaluates whether deploying into sUSDS (Sky Protocol Savings Rate) on Base is viable before a settlement deadline.

THIS TOOL DOES NOT MOVE FUNDS. It returns a structured recommendation with expected net yield, deployment amount, exit timing, and step-by-step execution instructions. All fund movement decisions remain with the client.

Safety rules enforced: • Always keeps thresholdUsd in Mercury — never swept • Maximum 90% of sweepable amount deployed to sUSDS • Minimum 2-hour window required (shorter windows don't cover gas) • Minimum $50,000 sweepable (below this, gas costs exceed yield) • Exit triggered 30 minutes before settlement deadline

Current instrument: sUSDS (Sky Protocol) — instant on-chain entry/exit, ~6.25% APY, Base chain, no US person restrictions, no de-peg events on record.

Workflow:

mercury.accounts → get accountId and available balance
mercury.sweep → get yield recommendation and execution steps
If PROCEED → follow execution.steps to wire funds and deploy
mercury.accounts again at exit time → confirm balance restored

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sandbox`	No	If true, marks analysis as sandbox mode — Mercury balance may not reflect live state.
`accountId`	Yes	Mercury account ID to analyze (from mercury.accounts).
`thresholdUsd`	No	Minimum USD balance to always keep in Mercury as a reserve. Sweepable = available balance minus this amount. Default: $50,000.
`riskTolerance`	No	Risk tolerance for yield deployment. Conservative requires APY > 5%. Default: moderate.
`settlementDeadlineUtc`	No	ISO 8601 UTC timestamp of when funds must be back in Mercury (e.g. "2026-06-28T18:00:00Z"). Defaults to 7 days from now. Drives the yield window calculation.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`account`	No	Mercury account summary with available balance, reserve threshold, and sweepable amount.
`execution`	No	Step-by-step execution instructions (present when recommendation is PROCEED).
`yieldAnalysis`	No	Yield routing analysis: instrument, APY, expected net yield, window, and recommendation (PROCEED \| HOLD).
`risk_disclosure`	No	Mandatory risk disclosure — client must acknowledge before acting.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, the description adds critical behavioral context: it returns a recommendation with execution steps, does not move funds, enforces safety rules (e.g., never sweeps thresholdUsd, max 90% deployment, 2-hour window), and lists the current instrument with yield. This goes well beyond what annotations convey.

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 well-structured with a purpose statement, explicit safety rules, and a step-by-step workflow. Every sentence adds value—no filler. It uses bullet points for the safety rules and a numbered list for the workflow, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 an output schema (not shown but mentioned) and 5 parameters with 100% schema coverage, the description is comprehensive: it explains the algorithmic logic, when to call, safety limits, the specific instrument (sUSDS), and the overall workflow. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each of the 5 parameters. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining the overall calculation logic (sweepable = available minus thresholdUsd) and linking parameters like settlementDeadlineUtc to the yield window. However, it doesn't detail all parameter constraints (e.g., exactly how conservative maps to APY > 5%) so a 4 is warranted.

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 performs 'Treasury float yield routing analysis for idle Mercury bank balances' with specific computations (sweepable amount, viability of sUSDS deployment). It is well-differentiated from sibling tools like mercury.accounts (list accounts) and treasury.yield_route (general yield route) by focusing only on sUSDS via Base, with explicit safety rules.

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 workflow steps listing which tools to call before (mercury.accounts) and after this tool, and when to execute fund movements. It also states this tool 'does not move funds' and that 'fund movement decisions remain with the client'—acting as a clear when-to-use guide.

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?