DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

swift.gpi_track

Read-onlyIdempotent

Track a DPX settlement via SWIFT gpi-compatible status. Given a UETR (Unique End-to-End Transaction Reference), returns gpi-format payment status including pacs.002 payload that a SWIFT member bank can submit to the gpi Tracker.

Use this when a UETR was provided at payment initiation (via the uetr field in settlement.execute or POST /payments/initiate). Returns ACCP (settled), PDNG (pending), or RJCT (rejected) with full on-chain settlement details.

DPX is not a SWIFT member — the SWIFT member bank submits the returned pacs.002 to the gpi Tracker via their own gpi API access.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`uetr`	Yes	RFC 4122 UUID UETR assigned at payment initiation, e.g. "97ed4827-7b6f-4491-a06f-b548d5a7512d".

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`uetr`	No	The UETR provided.
`pacs002`	No	Full ISO 20022 pacs.002 payload for gpi Tracker submission.
`gpiStatus`	No	ACCP \| PDNG \| RJCT
`dpxPaymentId`	No	DPX internal payment ID.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already clearly indicate this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that DPX is not a SWIFT member and describing how the output is used by a SWIFT member bank. However, it doesn't detail what happens if the UETR is invalid or not found, which would be a minor gap given the openWorldHint.

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 at three sentences, with the purpose and input clearly stated first, followed by usage guidelines and behavioral context. Every sentence adds value without 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 tool has a single parameter with full schema coverage, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, usage, output, and how the output is used by a SWIFT member bank, covering all necessary context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the single required parameter (uetr) with an example. The description adds context about the parameter's origin (from payment initiation) but doesn't provide additional syntax or validation details beyond what the schema offers. Baseline is 3, so this gets a 4 for the extra context about the parameter's role.

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 tracks a DPX settlement via SWIFT gpi-compatible status, specifying the exact input (UETR) and output (gpi-format payment status with pacs.002 payload). This distinguishes it from sibling settlement tools like settlement.execute, settlement.status, and settlement.nl by focusing specifically on SWIFT gpi tracking.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: when a UETR was provided at payment initiation via the uetr field in settlement.execute or POST /payments/initiate. It also provides context about who should use the output (SWIFT member bank) and what the returned pacs.002 is used for, effectively distinguishing this from other payment status tools.

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?