Skip to main content
Glama

DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

by io.github.untitledfinancial

fees.schedule

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the complete DPX fee schedule: all components (core/FX/ESG/license), volume discount tiers (Standard / Growth / Institutional / Sovereign), ESG fee table by score, scenario examples, and competitive benchmarks vs Stripe, Wise, SWIFT, and bank wire.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
feesNoFee component definitions
tiersNoVolume discount tiers
examplesNoFee calculation examples
benchmarksNoCompetitor fee benchmarks

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, covering safety. The description adds what the returned schedule includes, setting expectations for data scope. No contradictions.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, then a well-organized list of inclusions. Every phrase adds information; no fluff.

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, return values are documented elsewhere. The description covers all major aspects of the fee schedule and is sufficient for a no-param read-only retrieval tool. It doesn't need to explain parameters or side effects.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters because there are none; the input schema is an empty object.

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 opens with 'Get the complete DPX fee schedule' – a specific verb and resource. It enumerates the exact contents (components, tiers, ESG table, scenarios, benchmarks), making its scope unambiguous and distinguishing it from fees.compare and fees.verify.

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?

No explicit when/when-not guidance is given. The word 'complete' implies this is the go-to for the full schedule, but alternatives like fees.compare and fees.verify are not mentioned or contrasted. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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