Skip to main content
Glama

DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

by io.github.untitledfinancial

intelligence.aftershock

Read-onlyIdempotent

Aftershock Intelligence — models the secondary waves that follow a primary cascade event. Takes a primary shock (origin node, event type, magnitude, elapsed hours) and returns three aftershock waves: Wave 1 (0–72h immediate secondary effects), Wave 2 (1–4 weeks policy response distortions), Wave 3 (1–6 months structural changes now permanently locked in). Identifies which nodes are rebounding, which face amplified pressure, and which are structurally altered. Companion to market.cascade — run cascade first, then aftershock to see the full picture. POST with origin, eventType, magnitude, elapsedHours.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
originYesOrigin node ID from the primary cascade (e.g. "geo.conflict", "climate.drought").
eventTypeNoDescription of the primary event.
magnitudeYesPrimary shock magnitude 1–100.
elapsedHoursNoHours elapsed since the primary event. Default 24.
horizonHoursNoForward horizon to model in hours. Default 4320 (6 months).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
wave1NoImmediate (0–72h): rebound, amplified, structural nodes.
wave2NoPolicy response phase (1–4 weeks).
wave3NoStructural lock-in (1–6 months).
synthesisNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds rich behavioral context on wave timing, node status classification (rebounding, amplified pressure, structurally altered), which goes beyond annotation hints.

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?

Every sentence adds value: purpose, wave breakdown, output insights, and companion ordering. The POST method note is mildly redundant but doesn't detract from the concise, structured format.

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, the description doesn't need to detail return formats. It covers the tool's purpose, input semantics, wave outputs, and workflow context, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to compensate. It restates origin, eventType, magnitude, elapsedHours but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 the tool models secondary waves after a primary cascade event, with specific time horizons (0–72h, 1–4 weeks, 1–6 months). It names market.cascade as a companion, distinguishing its role in the workflow.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says 'run cascade first, then aftershock' which tells the agent exactly when to use this tool relative to market.cascade. It also describes what outputs to expect, helping the agent decide if this is the right intelligence 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