DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

ramp.settle

Destructive

Execute a DPX stablecoin settlement funded by a Ramp Agent Card — combines card creation and settlement in one call. Ramp handles the fiat conversion leg; DPX settles USDC or EURC on Base mainnet in ~30 seconds. Returns pacs.002 confirmation + SFDR PAI indicators. No crypto wallet pre-funding required. Requires Ramp account connected via ramp.connect.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`amount`	Yes	Payment amount (e.g. "50000.00").
`currency`	Yes	Source currency: USD or EUR.
`reference`	No	Your internal payment reference.
`tenant_id`	Yes	Tenant ID of the connected Ramp account.
`callback_url`	No	Webhook URL for pacs.002 delivery.
`creditor_lei`	No	Recipient LEI for GLEIF VoP (optional).
`creditor_name`	Yes	Recipient name.
`merchant_scope`	No	Merchant name for Agent Card scope.
`creditor_wallet`	Yes	Recipient on-chain wallet address (0x...).
`settlement_asset`	No	Settlement asset: USDC (default) or EURC.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	No
`iso20022`	No	pacs.002 status object.
`agentCard`	No
`compliance`	No	FATF R16 + SFDR PAI indicators.
`settlement`	No
`dpxPaymentId`	No

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral details: the settlement takes ~30 seconds, returns pacs.002 confirmation + SFDR PAI indicators, and requires no wallet pre-funding. It does not cover error handling or reversibility, but the added context is substantial.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds distinct value (purpose, legs, timing, output, prerequisites). No fluff or repetition.

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 complex tool with 10 parameters, 5 required, and an output schema, the description covers the core operation, timing, return format, and prerequisite. It does not explain the callback_url parameter's role in webhook delivery or potential error states, but the output schema compensates for return value details.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the workflow: the card creation and settlement are combined, and params like tenant_id and merchant_scope relate to the Ramp account. This contextualizes how parameters interact beyond raw schema definitions.

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 executes a DPX stablecoin settlement funded by a Ramp Agent Card, combining card creation and settlement in one call. It specifies the two legs (Ramp fiat conversion, DPX settlement on Base) and distinguishes from siblings like ramp.agent_card and card.settle by explicitly noting the combined operation.

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 clear context: it combines two operations, requires a Ramp account via ramp.connect, and needs no crypto pre-funding. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like card.settle (if only card settlement needed) or batch_settle, leaving implicit when to use this tool over others.

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?