Skip to main content
Glama

DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

by io.github.untitledfinancial

settlement.quote

Read-only

Get a binding fee quote for a DPX settlement. Returns core fee (1.50%), FX fee (0.40% cross-currency), live ESG fee (0–0.50%), license fee (0.01%), total all-in rate, net amount, oracle status, AI reasoning, and a quoteId valid for 300 seconds. Always call this before settlement.execute.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
leiNoCounterparty LEI — triggers automatic ESG lookup if esgScore is not provided.
hasFxNoTrue if source and destination currencies differ (adds 0.40% FX fee).
esgScoreNoCounterparty ESG score 0–100. If omitted and lei or counterpartyName is provided, the ESG Oracle is queried automatically.
amountUsdYesSettlement amount in USD.
counterpartyNameNoCounterparty company name — used for ESG auto-lookup if lei is not provided.
monthlyVolumeUsdNoMonthly volume for discount tier. $1M+ = Institutional (20% off). $10M+ = Sovereign (30% off).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
feesNo
tierNoVolume tier: Standard | Growth | Institutional | Sovereign
quoteIdNoBinding quote ID, valid 300 seconds
amountUsdNoInput settlement amount in USD
expiresAtNoISO 8601 expiry timestamp
reasoningNoAI reasoning for fee calculation
oracleScoreNoOracle confidence 0–100
netAmountUsdNoNet amount after all fees
oracleStatusNoSTABLE | CAUTION | UNSTABLE

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
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 description's job is lighter. It adds valuable context: the quote is 'binding,' the quoteId is 'valid for 300 seconds,' and the ESG fee is 'live' (auto-looked-up). These details go beyond the schema and annotations, improving transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concrete list of return values, and ends with a usage directive. Each sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition of annotations or schema.

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 present, the description need not detail return structures. It covers purpose, key outputs, quote validity, and workflow position relative to settlement.execute. For a read-only quote tool with 6 parameters and rich sibling context, this is fully complete.

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%, so each parameter is already documented. The description reinforces the FX fee (0.40%) and ESG fee ranges, but does not significantly expand on parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get a binding fee quote') and resource ('DPX settlement'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools by explicitly naming settlement.execute as the follow-up. It also enumerates the exact outputs (fees, quoteId, oracle status), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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?

The description explicitly states 'Always call this before settlement.execute,' providing a direct when-to-use instruction and linking to a sibling tool. This serves as an implicit exclusion for skipping the quote step, making the intended workflow 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