Skip to main content
Glama

DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

by io.github.untitledfinancial

fx.rate

Read-onlyIdempotent

Live mid-market FX rate for any currency pair. Returns mid rate, bid/ask spread, daily volatility %, regulatory flags for the corridor, and data freshness. Sourced from central bank rates (open.er-api.com, updated hourly, no API key required). Free.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesTarget currency ISO 4217 code (e.g. BRL)
fromYesSource currency ISO 4217 code (e.g. USD)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
askNo
bidNo
midNoMid-market rate (from → to)
pairNo
spreadPctNoImplied interbank spread %
updatedAtNo
corridorFlagsNoRegulatory flags for this corridor
dailyVolatilityPctNoEstimated daily FX volatility %

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: data source (central bank rates via open.er-api.com), update frequency (hourly), no API key requirement, and cost (free). No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return fields, then sourcing/cost. 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?

With an output schema providing return field details and annotations covering safety, the description additionally specifies data source, freshness, and authentication requirements. For a simple 2-param read-only tool, this is fully sufficient.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters (from, to) with clear ISO 4217 descriptions (100% schema coverage). The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond saying 'any currency pair'—no new syntax or constraints—so it meets the baseline but does not exceed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Purpose is clear: 'Live mid-market FX rate for any currency pair' with specific outputs listed (mid rate, bid/ask spread, volatility, flags, freshness). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like fx.corridors or market.fx, so it misses the full 5 for sibling differentiation.

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 implies when to use the tool ('Live mid-market FX rate for any currency pair') and adds practical context (free, no API key, hourly updates). It does not provide explicit 'when not to use' or name alternatives, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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