DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

oracle.mycelium

Read-onlyIdempotent

Mycelium Network Oracle — models the global financial system as a living network and detects crisis formation from network topology before it surfaces in market data, typically 6–14 weeks ahead. Maps nodes (markets, economies, funding markets), threads (capital flow channels, correspondent banking, trade finance), nutrient flow (liquidity), stress signals (spread widening, FX stress), and dead zones (sanctioned corridors, failed correspondent networks). Returns network health score (0–100), regime classification (HEALTHY / THINNING / STRESSED_CONNECTIVITY / DEAD_ZONE_FORMING / FRUITING_BODY_IMMINENT), node-by-node connectivity, thread health, signal propagation speed, and fruiting body risk — the probability of a visible crisis with estimated lead time in weeks. Data: FRED (funding markets, credit spreads), BIS SDMX API (credit-to-GDP gaps), IMF DOTS (bilateral trade volumes). The only oracle that reads network topology rather than individual metrics.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`nodes`	No
`regime`	No	Network regime classification.
`threadHealth`	No
`networkHealth`	No	Composite network vitality score 0–100.
`fruitingBodyRisk`	No
`networkNarrative`	No

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, establishing safety. The description adds substantial behavioral context: time horizon, output structure (health score, regime classification, etc.), data sources (FRED, BIS, IMF), and methodology (network topology). No contradictions 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the main purpose and well-structured into methodology, outputs, and data sources. While slightly verbose (e.g., listing all data sources), every sentence adds value for an agent unfamiliar with the domain. Could be more terse, but remains clear.

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?

Despite having no parameters, the tool has a rich output (with an output schema). The description comprehensively covers the return values, methodology, data sources, and lead time. An agent can fully understand what the tool does and what to expect from the result.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on tool behavior instead.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it models the global financial system as a living network and detects crisis formation from network topology with a specific lead time (6–14 weeks). This is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling oracle tools (e.g., oracle.stability, oracle.rails), leaving some ambiguity about when to prefer this one over them.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for network-topology-based crisis detection via phrases like 'The only oracle that reads network topology rather than individual metrics.' It provides strong context but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternative tools. For example, no mention of using oracle.stability for individual economic indicators.

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?