Skip to main content
Glama

DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

by io.github.untitledfinancial

intelligence.tectonic

Read-onlyIdempotent

Tectonic Intelligence — maps slow-moving structural stress across 22 fault lines in 5 domains (demographic, fiscal, environmental, infrastructure, geopolitical). Each node carries current stress (0–100), accumulation rate (%/yr), tipping threshold, and estimated years to rupture. Where market.cascade traces an acute shock, tectonic surfaces latent pressure before it ruptures. Returns per-node stress state, rupture sequence, horizon timeline, and AI synthesis briefing. No input required — GET.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
synthesisNoAI briefing on the most dangerous structural accumulations.
faultLinesNoPer-node: domain, label, stress, accumulationRate, yearsToRupture, tippingThreshold.
systemStressNoComposite tectonic stress 0–100.
ruptureSequenceNoOrdered fault lines by proximity to rupture.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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 beyond this by specifying the HTTP method (GET), confirming no input, and detailing the returned artifact (per-node stress state, rupture sequence, horizon timeline, AI synthesis briefing). 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?

The description packs comprehensive information into a compact paragraph: purpose, data model, comparison with sibling, output, and invocation details. Every sentence adds value, and there is no tautology or superfluous text.

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 intelligence tool with an output schema, the description covers domain (5 domains, 22 fault lines), key data points (stress, accumulation rate, threshold, years to rupture), output structure, and the contrast with market.cascade. It is sufficient for an agent to decide whether to invoke and what to expect.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With zero parameters and an empty schema, the description explicitly states 'No input required — GET,' removing any ambiguity about hidden parameters. This exceeds the baseline for 0-parameter tools by explicitly confirming that no input is needed.

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 defines the tool as mapping slow-moving structural stress across 22 fault lines in 5 domains, with the specific verb 'maps' and resource 'structural stress.' It distinguishes itself from sibling market.cascade by contrasting acute shocks with latent pressure, and from other intelligence tools by focusing on structural domains.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance by contrasting with market.cascade: 'Where market.cascade traces an acute shock, tectonic surfaces latent pressure before it ruptures.' This signals when to choose this tool (latent/structural risk) versus an alternative. The statement 'No input required — GET' also clarifies invocation.

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