Skip to main content
Glama

DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

by io.github.untitledfinancial

agent.kya_verify

Read-only

Verify a registered DPX agent and receive a signed 1-hour credential. Returns KYA level, effective spend caps (tier or mandate), owner verification status, mandate active status, and FATF R.16 compliance attestation. Attach credential.signature as X-Agent-Credential header and agentId as X-Agent-Id header on DPX /settle requests — enables mandate enforcement, per-agent audit trail, and FATF attestation. Credential expires in 1 hour; call again to refresh before expiry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agentIdYesAgent ID from agent.kya_register (agt_...).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mandateNoActive mandate if present, null if expired.
kyaLevelNo
kyaScoreNo
verifiedNo
credentialNoagentId, issuedAt, expiresAt, mandateId, attestation (kyaLevel, ownerVerified, mandateActive, fatfCompliant, dailyCapUsd, maxNotionalUsd), signature

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds useful behavioral context: the credential expires in 1 hour, must be refreshed, and is needed for /settle requests. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting 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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second lists return values, and the third gives usage instructions. Every sentence provides essential information 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?

For a read-only verification tool, the description covers the purpose, returned fields, usage instructions, and expiration/refresh behavior. It is self-sufficient even without an output schema, and it aligns well with the sibling tool set (e.g., agent.kya_register).

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?

The input schema covers the only parameter (agentId) with a description, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add further parameter details beyond referencing agent.kya_register, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific action: 'Verify a registered DPX agent and receive a signed 1-hour credential.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like agent.kya_register (registration) and compliance.pep_screen (screening) by focusing on verification and credential issuance for DPX /settle requests.

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 for when to use the tool: after registration and before settlement requests. It instructs how to use the credential (attach headers) and when to refresh ('Credential expires in 1 hour; call again to refresh before expiry'). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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 toolsInspect
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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple stablecoin routing options (route vs stability.stablecoin_route), several compliance pre-checks (flow_check, policy.check, mercury.ach_authorize), and numerous FX/stability tools (oracle.stability, stability.corridor, market.fx, fx.rate). Even with detailed descriptions, the boundaries are subtle and an agent could easily select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

The dot-separated namespace convention is mostly consistent and readable, but verb vs noun usage varies (e.g., settlement.execute vs batch_settle vs route). Subscription tools also mix forms (intelligence.subscribe vs intelligence.subscription.get/delete), showing minor inconsistency.

Tool Count1/5

81 tools is an extreme count for a settlement server. Even accounting for the broad 'institutional' scope, the volume overwhelms the core purpose and creates a heavy cognitive load for agents, far beyond the typical 3-15 well-scoped tool set.

Completeness3/5

The core settlement lifecycle is well-covered (quote, execute, track, receipt, batch), but there are notable gaps such as missing policy update/delete and no receipt retrieval (only create). While many tangential domains are over-covered, certain CRUD operations are absent, creating dead ends.

Resources