DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

ramp.compliance_screen

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compliance pre-screen for Ramp accounting agent payments — run before issuing an Agent Card to eliminate unnecessary human approval queues. Performs 5 checks in parallel: (1) FATF country risk on source and destination country, (2) amount threshold flags (CTR-equivalent at $10K, large-payment at $100K), (3) OpenSanctions global sanctions screen by counterparty name, (4) OpenSanctions PEP screen for individual counterparties or payroll, (5) GLEIF UBO chain with sanctions at each beneficial ownership node (if LEI provided). Returns APPROVED / FLAGGED / BLOCKED with a humanRequired boolean — true only for FLAGGED cases. APPROVED: issue card automatically, no human needed. BLOCKED: halt, do not proceed, do not notify counterparty. FLAGGED: route to compliance queue. Removes human-in-the-loop for the ~95% of payments that are clean.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`amount`	Yes	Payment amount in units of currency.
`currency`	No	ISO 4217 currency code. Defaults to "USD".
`paymentType`	No	Payment type — payroll automatically triggers PEP screen.
`isIndividual`	No	true if counterparty is an individual (triggers PEP screen). Defaults to false.
`sourceCountry`	No	ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 source country. Defaults to "US".
`counterpartyLei`	No	Optional GLEIF LEI — enables UBO chain check and satisfies FATF R.16 originator identification.
`counterpartyName`	Yes	Legal name of the payment counterparty.
`counterpartyCountry`	No	ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 destination country (e.g. "DE", "NG", "IR").

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`checks`	No	fatfCountry, amountFlags, sanctions, pep, uboChain check details.
`_action`	No	Recommended action for the agent.
`fatfR16`	No	FATF R.16 satisfied status and basis.
`reasons`	No	Specific reasons for the decision.
`decision`	No	Compliance decision.
`riskScore`	No	Risk score 0–100.
`humanRequired`	No	true only for FLAGGED — APPROVED payments proceed automatically.

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds concrete behavioral details: 5 parallel checks, sources (FATF, OpenSanctions, GLEIF), thresholds ($10K CTR, $100K large payment), and guidance on notifying counterparty for BLOCKED. No contradictions.

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 efficiently structured: purpose first, then numbered checks, then outcome mapping. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy. Appropriate length for a composite compliance tool.

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 (8 params, 2 required, output schema present), the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, how outcomes are interpreted, and key side effects like 'do not notify counterparty'. Output schema handles return values.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaning beyond schema: explains that paymentType 'payroll' and isIndividual trigger PEP screen, counterpartyLei enables UBO chain check and satisfies FATF R.16. This helps the agent select appropriate parameters.

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 it is a 'Compliance pre-screen for Ramp accounting agent payments' with specific verb 'run before issuing an Agent Card'. It details the 5 parallel checks, distinguishing it from siblings like compliance.pep_screen and compliance.ubo_chain by bundling them together.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use ('run before issuing an Agent Card'), explains outcomes (APPROVED: issue automatically, FLAGGED: route to compliance, BLOCKED: halt) and provides context on eliminating human approval for 95% of cases. Does not mention sibling alternatives, but the composite nature is clear.

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?