DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

oracle.rails

Read-only

Get live health status of local payment rails relevant to a settlement. Returns per-rail status (OPERATIONAL/DEGRADED/DOWN), latency, last incident, and a composite health score. Key rails: PIX (Brazil), SEPA (Europe), FedACH (US domestic), CHAPS (UK), UPI (India), PromptPay (Thailand). Call this before domestic or regionally-specific settlements to confirm the destination rail is healthy.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`rails`	No	Specific rails to check: 'PIX', 'SEPA', 'FedACH', 'CHAPS', 'UPI', 'PromptPay'. Omit for all.
`region`	No	Filter by region: 'latam', 'europe', 'us', 'asia', 'uk'.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`rails`	No	Per-rail status map
`timestamp`	No	ISO 8601 timestamp
`healthScore`	No	Composite rail health score 0–100
`recommendation`	No	Settlement recommendation based on rail health

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details: returns per-rail status (OPERATIONAL/DEGRADED/DOWN), latency, last incident, and composite health score, which are not in annotations. No contradictions found; the description aligns with and enriches the annotation metadata.

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?

Three concise sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states purpose and output type, second lists key rails, third gives usage advice. Information is front-loaded and every sentence adds unique value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the existence of an output schema (not detailed) and only two optional parameters, the description covers the essential behavior for a read-only health check tool. It could briefly mention that results are real-time or that all requested rails are returned, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description goes beyond by listing exact rail names with country context ('PIX (Brazil), SEPA (Europe), FedACH (US domestic)...') and explaining usage ('Omit for all', 'Filter by region'). This adds significant practical meaning for parameter selection.

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 retrieves live health status of local payment rails relevant to settlements, listing specific rails and return fields. This differentiates it from sibling oracle tools like oracle.status or oracle.stability by focusing on payment rail health for settlement readiness.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Call this before domestic or regionally-specific settlements to confirm the destination rail is healthy.' This clearly indicates when to use, though it does not mention when to avoid or name alternative tools, which would warrant a 5.

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?