Skip to main content
Glama

DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

by io.github.untitledfinancial

settle.subscribe

Register a webhook callback for settlement completion events. Your endpoint receives a POST with X-DPX-Signature: sha256= over the raw JSON body whenever a settlement completes. Returns a subscriptionId and webhookSecret — store the secret immediately, it is returned once.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesHTTPS endpoint to receive settlement.completed events
eventsNoEvent types (default: ["settlement.completed"])

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eventsNo
webhookSecretNoHMAC secret — returned once, store immediately
subscriptionIdNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description reveals critical behavior beyond annotations: the webhook signature format (X-DPX-Signature with HMAC), the POST delivery, and that the webhookSecret is returned only once and must be stored immediately. This is essential operational detail that annotations do not cover.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds essential information: registration purpose, callback format, signature, and secret handling. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Despite no output schema in the provided context, the description explains return values (subscriptionId and webhookSecret) and crucial operational behavior like signature verification and secret storage. It is complete for a webhook registration tool.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter details for url and events. The description does not add significant parameter-level meaning, only restating url as the endpoint. The return value mention is useful but not parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given schema's completeness.

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 registers a webhook callback for settlement completion events, using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like settlement.status or intelligence.subscribe by focusing on settlement completion events and webhook registration.

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 provides clear context for when to use it: whenever a settlement completes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the webhook registration purpose is distinct enough to guide selection. A minor gap is the lack of explicit 'use this instead of polling' guidance.

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