DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

stability.corridor

Read-onlyIdempotent

Corridor-specific settlement stability score (0–100) for any currency pair. Combines the live global Stability Oracle score with corridor-specific risk adjustments covering 28 currency pairs: regulatory flags (BCB/IOF for BRL, PBoC capital rules for CNH, BCRA controls for ARS, etc.), FX liquidity score based on active trading sessions at current UTC time, cascade penalty from live macro signals, and weekend/off-hours penalty. Returns SETTLE_NOW / DELAY_24H / DELAY_48H recommendation with rationale. Distinct from oracle.stability (which is global) and market.fx (which is spot-rate focused) — this answers "is this specific corridor safe to settle through right now?"

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to`	Yes	Destination currency ISO-4217 code (e.g. "BRL", "MXN", "SGD").
`from`	Yes	Source currency ISO-4217 code (e.g. "USD", "EUR", "GBP").

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`corridor`	No	score (0–100), tier, recommendation (SETTLE_NOW/DELAY_24H/DELAY_48H), regulatoryFlags, corridorNotes
`components`	No	globalOracleScore, corridorAdjustment, cascadePenalty, liquidityScore, weekendPenalty
`marketContext`	No	cascadeLevel, globalOutlook, currentUtcHour, isWeekend

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and no destructiveness. The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond annotations: it explains the combination of global oracle score, regulatory flags, FX liquidity, cascade penalty, and weekend penalties, plus the output recommendation types (SETTLE_NOW/DELAY_24H/DELAY_48H). No contradiction.

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 sentences: first states purpose and score range, second lists the factors considered, third distinguishes from siblings and clarifies the question answered. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but mentioned), rich annotations, and 100% parameter coverage, the description is complete. It covers inputs, internal logic, output format, and use cases, with no gaps.

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 covers both parameters with full descriptions. The description does not add new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, though it reinforces the currency pair context. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 returns a corridor-specific settlement stability score (0–100) for any currency pair, and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools oracle.stability (global) and market.fx (spot-rate focused). It answers the specific question 'is this specific corridor safe to settle through right now?'.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance by contrasting with two sibling tools and stating this tool is for corridor-specific safety. It implies when not to use (when global stability or spot rate is needed) and names 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?