DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

settlement.nl

Destructive

Execute a payment from a plain-English instruction. DPX's AI synthesis layer parses the instruction, runs the full oracle gate → compliance screen → settlement flow autonomously, and returns a receipt. Use this when the agent has a natural-language payment task rather than structured parameters. Examples: 'Pay Acme GmbH $25,000 for invoice #42', 'Send $10k to 0x... for vendor services', 'Settle the outstanding balance with Nova Trade SA'. Sandbox mode by default.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sandbox`	No	Set false for live execution. Default: true
`instruction`	Yes	Plain-English payment instruction, e.g. 'Pay Acme GmbH $25,000 USD for invoice #INV-2026-0042'
`recipientAddress`	Yes	Recipient wallet address (0x...)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	No
`txHash`	No
`feesTotal`	No
`netAmount`	No
`aiDecision`	No
`aiConfidence`	No
`settlementId`	No

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint: true, which is consistent with executing a payment. The description adds behavioral context: it is an autonomous multi-step flow (parsing, oracle gate, compliance screen, settlement) and returns a receipt. It also notes 'Sandbox mode by default' which is a safety behavior. No contradictions 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?

The description is concise (3 sentences plus examples) and front-loaded with the core verb phrase 'Execute a payment from a plain-English instruction.' Every sentence adds unique value: the process, usage context, and examples. No wasted words.

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 (autonomous multi-step flow) and the presence of a full input schema and output schema (though not shown), the description is complete enough. It explains the high-level process, safety behaviors (sandbox default), and provides representative examples. The agent has sufficient info to invoke the tool correctly.

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 each parameter is documented in the schema. The description does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema; it provides examples of what 'instruction' could contain. The 'recipientAddress' and 'sandbox' are merely referenced in examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when schema handles the details.

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's purpose: executing a payment from a plain-English instruction. It explains the process (AI synthesis layer parses instruction, runs oracle gate → compliance screen → settlement flow) and gives concrete examples. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'settlement.execute' or 'settlement.quote', which likely require structured parameters.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'when the agent has a natural-language payment task rather than structured parameters.' It implicitly indicates not to use it when structured parameters are available (e.g., for 'settlement.execute'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use siblings or list 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?