DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

settle.subscribe

Register a webhook callback for settlement completion events. Your endpoint receives a POST with X-DPX-Signature: sha256= over the raw JSON body whenever a settlement completes. Returns a subscriptionId and webhookSecret — store the secret immediately, it is returned once.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	HTTPS endpoint to receive settlement.completed events
`events`	No	Event types (default: ["settlement.completed"])

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`events`	No
`webhookSecret`	No	HMAC secret — returned once, store immediately
`subscriptionId`	No

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses the callback mechanism (POST with HMAC signature), the returned fields (subscriptionId, webhookSecret), and the critical behavioral note that the secret is returned only once. Annotations provide no contradictions (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). This adds valuable context beyond annotations for a subscription tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is two sentences, front-loading the main purpose. The second sentence is somewhat dense but still efficient. Every sentence provides distinct value, though it could be slightly more structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no enums, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral details: webhook mechanism, return values, and the critical warning about the secret. It does not mention error handling, but that may be covered by the output schema.

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 description coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both 'url' and 'events'. The description adds meaning by explaining the callback format and the importance of storing the secret immediately, which goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 'Register a webhook callback for settlement completion events.' It uses a specific verb ('register'), specifies the resource ('webhook callback'), and the event ('settlement completion'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'intelligence.subscribe' (for intelligence events) and 'settlement.status' (for checking status).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context by stating 'Your endpoint receives a POST...' but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use hints or prerequisites. The purpose is clear, but the description lacks explicit usage guidance.

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?