DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

settlement.execute

Destructive

Execute a DPX cross-border settlement. The Settlement Agent checks oracle conditions, reasons with Claude AI, and executes on-chain (or returns sandbox result if sandbox=true). Returns settlement ID, status (executed/held/sandbox/failed), tx hash, net amount, fees, oracle conditions, and AI reasoning. Default: sandbox=true — set sandbox=false only for live execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`amount`	Yes	Amount in source currency units
`purpose`	No	Payment purpose: intercompany, vendor-payment, payroll, treasury
`quoteId`	No	Pre-fetched quoteId from get_quote (optional — agent fetches live if omitted)
`sandbox`	No	Sandbox mode — real calculations, no on-chain execution. Default: true.
`esgScore`	No	ESG score override 0–100 (testing only)
`referenceId`	No	External reference ID (invoice number, TMS ID, etc.)
`sourceCurrency`	Yes	Source currency: USD, EUR, GBP, USDC, EURC
`recipientAddress`	Yes	On-chain recipient wallet address (0x...)
`destinationCurrency`	Yes	Destination currency: USD, EUR, GBP, USDC, EURC

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`result`	No
`summary`	No	Human-readable settlement outcome summary
`httpStatus`	No	HTTP status from Settlement Agent

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the multi-step process (oracle conditions, Claude AI reasoning, on-chain execution), the sandbox mode behavior, and the return fields. This is well above what annotations provide (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true) and aligns with them.

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 three well-structured sentences: purpose, process/returns, and sandbox guidance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, uses no filler, and every sentence adds value. Excellent conciseness.

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 (9 parameters, 4 required, output schema present), the description covers the main purpose, process, return values, and sandbox mode. It does not explain error conditions (e.g., what 'held' or 'failed' mean) or prerequisites like funding or mandates. Still, it is largely complete for a tool with an output schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema descriptions (e.g., sandbox default, quoteId optional). It mentions return values but those are output-related. No contradiction or additional meaning for 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 'Execute a DPX cross-border settlement' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling settlement tools by describing the full process (oracle checks, AI reasoning, on-chain execution) and the default sandbox mode, making it unambiguous as the primary execution tool.

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: sandbox mode is default, and sandbox=false is only for live execution. It also references get_quote for optional quoteId. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like settlement.quote or batch_settle, nor does it state when to use this tool over alternatives.

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?