DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

ramp.agent_card

Create a scoped Ramp Agent Card — a single-use virtual card with a merchant and amount cap, expires after first authorization or 12 hours. Used to fund the fiat leg of a DPX settlement without pre-funding a crypto wallet. Returns a task ID; poll ramp.agent_card_status to get PAN/CVV once ready. Requires cards:read_agentic scope (granted via ramp.connect).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`amount`	Yes	Card spending cap (e.g. "10000.00").
`currency`	No	Currency code (default USD).
`reference`	No	Your internal reference ID.
`tenant_id`	Yes	Tenant ID of the connected Ramp account.
`display_name`	No	Card label visible in Ramp dashboard.
`merchant_scope`	No	Intended merchant name (informational).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`amount`	No
`taskId`	No	Poll GET /ramp/agent-card/:taskId for card PAN/CVV.
`currency`	No
`reference`	No
`statusUrl`	No

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond annotations: async nature (returns task ID, poll for PAN/CVV), lifecycle (single-use, 12-hour expiry), auth requirement (cards:read_agentic scope). No contradiction with annotations; readOnlyHint=false is consistent with creation.

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?

Four sentences, each essential: action, purpose, output behavior, auth requirement. Front-loaded with the core action. No redundancy or filler.

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 (unseen), the description explains the async flow and next steps. It covers the DPX settlement context, auth scope, and card lifecycle, making it complete for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context (e.g., 'merchant and amount cap') but doesn't significantly extend parameter understanding beyond the schema. It clarifies overall purpose but not parameter-specific semantics.

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 'Create a scoped Ramp Agent Card' with specific characteristics (single-use, merchant and amount cap, expires after first auth or 12 hours). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like ramp.connect and ramp.settle by tying it directly to funding the fiat leg of a DPX settlement.

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 a clear use case: funding the fiat leg of a DPX settlement without pre-funding a crypto wallet. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the context is specific enough to guide an agent. Lacks exclusions, hence 4.

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?