Skip to main content
Glama

DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

by io.github.untitledfinancial

integration.status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check the status of a DPX integration verification session. Polls Base mainnet for receipt of the $0.01 USDC handshake payment. Returns "pending" until payment is detected on-chain, then "verified" with the txHash and a Basescan explorer link. Poll every 10–15 seconds after sending the payment.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesverificationId returned by integration.verify.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
statusNoCurrent verification state.
txHashNoTransaction hash of the $0.01 payment. Present when verified.
messageNo
explorerNoBasescan URL for the verification transaction.
verifiedAtNoISO timestamp of on-chain confirmation. Present when status is "verified".
walletAddressNo

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?

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description adds meaningful context: it mentions the specific USDC amount, chain, the transition from pending to verified, and the inclusion of a txHash and Basescan link. This enriches the agent's understanding of the polling behavior.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Check the status'), and every sentence contributes value—explaining the mechanism, return values, and polling frequency.

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?

For a simple one-parameter polling tool with strong annotations and an output schema, the description covers the process, expected states, and usage cadence. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly without further clarification.

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?

The only parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema as 'verificationId returned by integration.verify.' The description itself does not add extra information about how to use the parameter, so the schema carries the full semantic load.

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 clearly states 'Check the status of a DPX integration verification session' and details the specific behavior of returning 'pending' vs 'verified' with a txHash and explorer link. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like integration.verify.

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 explicitly instructs to poll every 10–15 seconds after sending the payment and explains the condition for verification (receipt of $0.01 USDC on Base mainnet). However, it does not explicitly name integration.verify as the alternative or state when not to use this tool.

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