Skip to main content
Glama

DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

by io.github.untitledfinancial

oracle.stability

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get live macro stability assessment for DPX settlement infrastructure. Returns institutional risk score (0–100), status (STABLE/CAUTION/UNSTABLE), peg deviation in basis points, AI reasoning, and PROCEED/CAUTION/HOLD recommendation. Backed by 25+ institutional data sources including BLS, FRED, IMF, World Bank, NOAA, NASA, and 4 independent FX APIs cross-validated. If UNSTABLE or peg deviation ≥ 50 bps, hold large settlements.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusNoCurrent stability status
outlookNoShort-term stability outlook
reasoningNoAI reasoning for current status
timestampNoISO 8601 assessment timestamp
pegDeviationNoUSDC peg deviation in basis points
recommendationNoPROCEED | CAUTION | HOLD
stabilityScoreNoOracle stability score 0–100

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 indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and nondestructive behavior, so the primary burden is on additional context. The description provides valuable behavioral detail: it is 'live,' backed by '25+ institutional data sources' with cross-validation, and includes a concrete decision threshold for holding settlements. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured sentences: what it does, what it returns, and the data provenance plus a conditional action. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no filler.

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 has no parameters, an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), and the description covers the purpose, output fields, data sources, and a behavioral threshold. This is complete for an agent to decide when and how to use the tool.

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 input schema is an empty object with zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. Baseline for zero parameters is 4; description adds context about the data sources and output, which is sufficient.

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?

Description clearly identifies the tool as 'Get live macro stability assessment for DPX settlement infrastructure,' specifying both the action and resource. It also enumerates the output fields (risk score, status, peg deviation, AI reasoning, recommendation), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like oracle.status or stability.corridor.

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?

The description gives context (for DPX settlement infrastructure) and a clear conditional instruction: 'If UNSTABLE or peg deviation ≥ 50 bps, hold large settlements.' This implies when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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