DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

ramp.connect

Read-only

Connect a Ramp corporate account to DPX settlement. Returns an OAuth authorization URL — direct the user to this URL to grant DPX access to their Ramp account. Required scopes: transactions:read, bills:read/write, cards:read/write, cards:read_agentic (Agent Cards), business:read, bank_accounts:read, vendors:read, entities:read. Call once per tenant; tokens are stored and refreshed automatically.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tenant_id`	Yes	Your internal tenant or customer ID — returned in the callback so you can match the connection.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`scopes`	No	Requested OAuth scopes.
`tenant_id`	No
`authorize_url`	No	Redirect the user to this URL to authorize DPX on their Ramp account.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and no destructiveness; the description confirms it returns an authorization URL and adds behavioral context: tokens are stored/refreshed automatically, call frequency, and required scopes. No contradiction 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences front-load purpose and output, then add scopes and usage frequency. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

For a one-parameter OAuth tool, the description covers purpose, output, user action, scopes, call frequency, and token management. It could mention URL expiry or error cases, but completeness is high given the presence of an output schema and annotations.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for tenant_id. The tool description adds no extra parameter information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 connects a Ramp corporate account to DPX settlement, using a specific verb ('connect') and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like ramp.settle or ramp.spend_analysis, which are post-connection operations.

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 specifies calling once per tenant, directs the user to the returned URL for authorization, and lists required OAuth scopes. It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use instructions, but context with sibling tools makes the usage 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?