Skip to main content
Glama

DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

by io.github.untitledfinancial

policy.delegate

Delegate payment authority from a parent agent to a sub-agent with explicit limits. The sub-agent can only spend up to the delegated ceiling. Delegation can be revoked at any time. Use in multi-agent workflows where an orchestrator authorises a worker agent to make payments on its behalf.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
max_totalNoLifetime spending ceiling for this delegation
policy_idNoPolicy ID to inherit (optional — inherits parent policy if omitted)
expires_atNoUnix timestamp (ms) when this delegation expires. Omit for no expiry.
max_per_txNoMaximum USD per transaction for the sub-agent
child_agent_idYesThe sub-agent receiving delegated authority
parent_agent_idYesThe authorising (parent) agent ID

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavior: 'sub-agent can only spend up to the delegated ceiling' and 'Delegation can be revoked at any time'. This goes beyond the annotations and illuminates the intended side effects.

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, and no filler. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, constraint, and usage context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers purpose, usage context, and key behavioral traits (limits, revocation). No output schema exists, so the description might have mentioned return values, but the schema fully documents parameters. It is complete enough for a straightforward delegation creation tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter clearly documented (e.g., max_total as 'Lifetime spending ceiling'). The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states 'Delegate payment authority from a parent agent to a sub-agent with explicit limits' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like policy.create and agent.mandate_create by focusing on delegation with limits and revocation.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use in multi-agent workflows where an orchestrator authorises a worker agent to make payments on its behalf' – provides clear context for when to use. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is sufficient.

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