List all AI models available through DPX Compute. All models are free-tier (no token cost) — routed via OpenRouter. Returns model IDs, provider, capability strengths, context window, and speed tier. Use this before compute.route to understand what models are available and pick the right one for a task. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds useful context: models are routed via OpenRouter, no token cost, and it lists the specific return fields (model IDs, provider, capability strengths, context window, speed tier). This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying the behavioral scope and output contents.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, but it repeats 'Free' twice ('free-tier' and 'Free.') and includes slightly redundant phrasing. Overall, every sentence provides useful information, so it earns a strong score, but the redundancy keeps it from a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is present, but the description details the return fields (model IDs, provider, capability strengths, context window, speed tier) and gives usage context. For a parameterless list tool with good annotations, this is complete and self-sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description provides a clear explanation of the tool's output, adding value despite the lack of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all AI models available through DPX Compute, using the specific verb 'list' and the resource 'AI models'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool compute.route by positioning itself as a precursor to route selection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs to use this tool before compute.route to understand available models and pick the right one, providing clear when-to-use guidance and naming the alternative tool. It also states all models are free-tier, eliminating concerns about cost.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.