Skip to main content
Glama

DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

by io.github.untitledfinancial

card.settle

Execute treasury settlement for a crypto card program. Takes the same positions array as card.positions but executes all settlements via DPX batch — compliance-gated, oracle-priced, stablecoin-routed. Each position requires a recipientAddress. Use sandbox:true for testing. Returns per-corridor settlement results and a summary.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sandboxNotrue = test mode, no on-chain execution. Default true — set false only for live execution.
positionsYesArray of net positions. Each: { corridor: "USD-BRL", netAmountUsd: 2300000, recipientAddress: "0x..." }. recipientAddress is required for every position.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / sandbox / description
      Previous value: -"true = test mode, no on-chain execution. Default false."New value: +"true = test mode, no on-chain execution. Default true — set false only for live execution."
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses beyond annotations: 'compliance-gated, oracle-priced, stablecoin-routed' adds operational context; notes sandbox behavior (no on-chain execution); states return type. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). Still could mention idempotency or failure modes but solid coverage.

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 precisely convey purpose, method, constraint, usage tip, and return. Front-loaded with key action. No redundant or filler content. Every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given moderate complexity, schema coverage is good, but no output schema exists. Description mentions per-corridor results and summary but lacks details on error handling, idempotency, or failure scenarios. Leaves some gaps for a settlement execution 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 descriptions already cover both parameters with high detail (100% coverage). The description reinforces that recipientAddress is required and echoes sandbox default, adding minimal new meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as schema carries the load.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Execute treasury settlement' and resource 'crypto card program.' Differentiates from sibling card.positions by noting it uses the same positions array but executes settlement via DPX batch. However, does not distinguish from batch_settle or other settlement tools, leaving some ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides a specific usage tip: 'Use sandbox:true for testing.' Implicitly suggests when to use (when executing treasury settlement for a card program) but lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives beyond mentioning card.positions. No guidance on selecting between batch_settle or other settlement tools.

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