Submit multiple settlements in a single call. Runs all settlements concurrently — one failure does not block others. Returns a summary (total/succeeded/failed) and per-item results mirroring what POST /settle would return. Maximum 50 per batch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| settlements | Yes | Array of settlement request objects (same schema as the settle tool) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| results | No | ||
| summary | No |
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?
Discloses valuable behavioral traits beyond the sparse annotations: concurrent execution, partial failure tolerance, response summary, and per-item mirroring of POST /settle. Annotations only provide false hints, so the description adds meaningful context, though it omits details like authorization or 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose, the second explains concurrency and failure handling, and the third describes the return value and batch limit. Front-loaded and free of fluff.
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?
For a batch operation with an output schema, the description covers all critical operational aspects: purpose, concurrency, partial failure, return summary, and maximum batch size. It does not mention sandbox usage or broader error handling, but these are not essential given the rich output schema and clear behavior description.
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 sole parameter 'settlements' is already described in the schema as 'Array of settlement request objects (same schema as the settle tool)', and the description additionally repeats the 50-item max (already in schema). No new semantic meaning is added 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description opens with 'Submit multiple settlements in a single call', a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes batch_settle from single-settlement siblings via concurrency, failure isolation, and a 50-item cap. This leaves no doubt about the tool's scope.
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?
Clearly states the use case (multiple settlements in one call) and key behavior (concurrent execution, one failure not blocking others). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not scenarios, so it falls just short of full guidance.
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.