DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

forecast.commodity_outlook

Read-only

Climate-driven price pressure outlook for a commodity. Returns BULLISH/BEARISH/NEUTRAL signal with 30/60/90-day horizons, confidence score, per-region stressor breakdown, and current FRED price reference. Covers 11 commodities: WHEAT, CORN, SOYB, COFFEE, COCOA, COTTON, SUGAR, WTI, NG, COPPER, LUMBER. Designed for institutional research teams evaluating commodity positions. Signals reflect supply constraint risk from climate — not a financial recommendation. Cache: 4h.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fresh`	No	true = bypass 4h cache and recompute live signals
`symbol`	Yes	Commodity symbol

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No
`signal`	No
`symbol`	No
`regions`	No	Per production-region climate scores and drought/temperature readings
`horizons`	No	30d / 60d / 90d — each has signal, confidence, basis
`reasoning`	No	Plain-language synthesis of climate signals and price implications
`stressors`	No	Active climate stressors with severity, region, price impact estimate, probability
`confidence`	No	Signal confidence 0–1
`climateScore`	No	Supply constraint pressure 0–100; >65 = elevated bullish pressure
`currentPrice`	No	Latest FRED price reference (value, unit, date)
`forecastedAt`	No
`recommendation`	No
`inGrowingSeason`	No	true = stressors in peak transmission window — act faster

Schema Changelog

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

First observedAug 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by disclosing cache behavior ('Cache: 4h'), the ability to bypass it via 'fresh', and a disclaimer about not being a financial recommendation. It also details the output structure (BULLISH/BEARISH/NEUTRAL, horizons, confidence score). This goes beyond the minimal annotation credit.

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 four sentences, with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and then logically flows to return values, scope, audience, disclaimer, and caching. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's straightforward read-only nature, rich annotations, full schema descriptions, and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers scope, behavior, audience, and caveats, and clearly differentiates from siblings without needing to explain the output format (handled by output schema).

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters have descriptions. The tool description's parameter-related content, such as the commodity list and cache time, largely duplicates the schema's own parameter descriptions. It adds no meaningful new semantic information about the parameters themselves.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Climate-driven price pressure outlook for a commodity.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like forecast.scenario or forecast.portfolio_stress by focusing on commodity-specific climate signals and listing the exact 11 commodities covered.

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?

It clearly states the target audience and use case: 'Designed for institutional research teams evaluating commodity positions.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context is sufficiently clear for an evaluative decision.

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 tools Inspect

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.

forecast.commodity_outlook

Input Schema

Output Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources