Skip to main content
Glama

DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

by io.github.untitledfinancial

oracle.status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get full output from the latest DPX Stability Oracle run. Includes all 9 signal layers: climate, commodities, macro, FX, basket peg, yield curve, infrastructure, war/geopolitical risk, and USD structural health. Includes AI intelligence briefing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tierNoOracle tier classification
scoreNoComposite oracle score 0–100
alertsNoActive oracle alerts
statusNoSTABLE | CAUTION | UNSTABLE
signalsNoIndividual signal scores for all 9 oracle layers
briefingNoAI intelligence briefing text
timestampNoISO 8601 oracle run timestamp
chaosRegimeNoTrue if extreme market conditions detected

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds temporal context by specifying 'latest' run, implying output changes over time, and enumerates the signal layers included, which is useful behavioral/scope information beyond the 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, then listing the included layers efficiently. Every sentence contributes meaningful content without redundancy or fluff.

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 no parameters, a rich output schema (implied), and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description fully covers what the agent needs: it states the exact output scope and content. No aspects are left undocumented for invocation.

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 tool has no parameters, so the schema is fully covered by default. The description adds no parameter-specific details (not needed), but it does explain what the returned output contains (9 signal layers + AI briefing), which is valuable for understanding the tool's effect without parameters.

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 retrieves the full output from the latest DPX Stability Oracle run, listing all 9 signal layers. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling oracle tools like oracle.governance, oracle.mycelium, oracle.rails, and oracle.stability.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'latest' and 'full output', indicating when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over other oracle.* tools.

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