Skip to main content
Glama

DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

by io.github.untitledfinancial

invoice.pay

Pay an agent-to-agent invoice by ID. Retrieves the invoice, runs settlement via POST /settle, and marks the invoice PAID on success. In sandbox mode returns a simulated receipt; in live mode returns execution parameters for on-chain completion.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sandboxNoTrue for sandbox simulation. Default: true — set false only for live execution.
invoiceIdYesInvoice UUID to pay
recipientAddressNoPayee wallet address (required if not set in invoice)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
invoiceIdNo
settlementNoFull settlement result from POST /settle

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 for sandbox simulation (default: false)"New value: +"True for sandbox simulation. Default: true — set false only for live execution."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description richly details behavior beyond sparse annotations: it retrieves the invoice, calls POST /settle, and marks the invoice PAID. It explicitly states the side effect (state change) and mode-dependent return values (simulated receipt vs. execution parameters). This fully informs an agent of the tool's runtime 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 two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and steps; the second covers mode behavior. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's low complexity (three params, output schema available), the description covers core behavior and output differences. However, it omits preconditions (e.g., invoice must be in a payable state, recipientAddress may be optional) and does not reference the output schema. Slightly incomplete but generally sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., sandbox default, invoiceId UUID, recipientAddress condition). No additional usage context or format hints are given.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: pay an agent-to-agent invoice by ID. It explains the multi-step process (retrieve, settle, mark paid) and distinguishes between sandbox and live modes. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like settlement.execute or batch_settle that might handle similar payment logic.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., settlement.execute, card.settle, ramp.settle). It does not state prerequisites (e.g., invoice must exist and be unpaid) or scenarios where another tool would be preferable. The sandbox/live distinction is helpful but addresses environment not tool selection.

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