DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

settlement.quote

Read-only

Get a binding fee quote for a DPX settlement. Returns core fee (1.50%), FX fee (0.40% cross-currency), live ESG fee (0–0.50%), license fee (0.01%), total all-in rate, net amount, oracle status, AI reasoning, and a quoteId valid for 300 seconds. Always call this before settlement.execute.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`lei`	No	Counterparty LEI — triggers automatic ESG lookup if esgScore is not provided.
`hasFx`	No	True if source and destination currencies differ (adds 0.40% FX fee).
`esgScore`	No	Counterparty ESG score 0–100. If omitted and lei or counterpartyName is provided, the ESG Oracle is queried automatically.
`amountUsd`	Yes	Settlement amount in USD.
`counterpartyName`	No	Counterparty company name — used for ESG auto-lookup if lei is not provided.
`monthlyVolumeUsd`	No	Monthly volume for discount tier. $1M+ = Institutional (20% off). $10M+ = Sovereign (30% off).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`fees`	No
`tier`	No	Volume tier: Standard \| Growth \| Institutional \| Sovereign
`quoteId`	No	Binding quote ID, valid 300 seconds
`amountUsd`	No	Input settlement amount in USD
`expiresAt`	No	ISO 8601 expiry timestamp
`reasoning`	No	AI reasoning for fee calculation
`oracleScore`	No	Oracle confidence 0–100
`netAmountUsd`	No	Net amount after all fees
`oracleStatus`	No	STABLE \| CAUTION \| UNSTABLE

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true (non-destructive) and openWorldHint=true (state-dependent). The description adds useful behavioral details: the quote is binding, valid for 300 seconds, includes live ESG fee and AI reasoning, and implies dynamic updates. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first captures purpose and return values, the second provides critical usage guidance. No redundancy or filler.

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 6 parameters, output schema, and many siblings, the description is nearly complete. It covers return values, workflow, and key fees. Minor gaps: what happens on quote expiration or how to use the quoteId, but these are partially addressable 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 coverage is 100% with good parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining how fees are derived (e.g., FX fee for cross-currency, ESG fee based on score/LEI) and tying the quoteId to the 300-second validity, enriching understanding beyond schema alone.

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: 'Get a binding fee quote for a DPX settlement.' It uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (binding fee quote) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like settlement.execute and settlement.status.

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 instructs: 'Always call this before settlement.execute,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative comparisons, but the strong prerequisite directive is highly valuable.

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?