DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

oracle.stability

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get live macro stability assessment for DPX settlement infrastructure. Returns institutional risk score (0–100), status (STABLE/CAUTION/UNSTABLE), peg deviation in basis points, AI reasoning, and PROCEED/CAUTION/HOLD recommendation. Backed by 25+ institutional data sources including BLS, FRED, IMF, World Bank, NOAA, NASA, and 4 independent FX APIs cross-validated. If UNSTABLE or peg deviation ≥ 50 bps, hold large settlements.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	No	Current stability status
`outlook`	No	Short-term stability outlook
`reasoning`	No	AI reasoning for current status
`timestamp`	No	ISO 8601 assessment timestamp
`pegDeviation`	No	USDC peg deviation in basis points
`recommendation`	No	PROCEED \| CAUTION \| HOLD
`stabilityScore`	No	Oracle stability score 0–100

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: it is backed by 25+ institutional data sources (BLS, FRED, etc.) and cross-validated. This enhances trust and understanding without contradicting annotations.

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?

Two sentences, perfectly front-loaded with the core action and outputs. Every sentence adds value: the first covers purpose and outputs, the second adds data sources and a conditional usage rule. No wasted words.

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 complexity (macro stability assessment with multiple outputs), the description covers purpose, data sources, conditions for action, and implicitly the return structure (since an output schema exists). It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty object). The description correctly does not attempt to describe parameters. Baseline 4 is appropriate as no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 a live macro stability assessment for DPX settlement infrastructure, listing specific outputs (risk score, status, peg deviation, AI reasoning, recommendation). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like oracle.governance or stability.stablecoin_route.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'If UNSTABLE or peg deviation ≥ 50 bps, hold large settlements.' This tells the agent when to act on the result. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the unique purpose is clear enough.

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?