Skip to main content
Glama

DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

by io.github.untitledfinancial

stability.corridor

Read-onlyIdempotent

Corridor-specific settlement stability score (0–100) for any currency pair. Combines the live global Stability Oracle score with corridor-specific risk adjustments covering 28 currency pairs: regulatory flags (BCB/IOF for BRL, PBoC capital rules for CNH, BCRA controls for ARS, etc.), FX liquidity score based on active trading sessions at current UTC time, cascade penalty from live macro signals, and weekend/off-hours penalty. Returns SETTLE_NOW / DELAY_24H / DELAY_48H recommendation with rationale. Distinct from oracle.stability (which is global) and market.fx (which is spot-rate focused) — this answers "is this specific corridor safe to settle through right now?"

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesDestination currency ISO-4217 code (e.g. "BRL", "MXN", "SGD").
fromYesSource currency ISO-4217 code (e.g. "USD", "EUR", "GBP").

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
corridorNoscore (0–100), tier, recommendation (SETTLE_NOW/DELAY_24H/DELAY_48H), regulatoryFlags, corridorNotes
componentsNoglobalOracleScore, corridorAdjustment, cascadePenalty, liquidityScore, weekendPenalty
marketContextNocascadeLevel, globalOutlook, currentUtcHour, isWeekend

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds rich detail about the underlying logic: it combines the global oracle score with corridor-specific adjustments (regulatory flags, FX liquidity, cascade penalty, weekend/off-hours penalty) and returns a recommendation with rationale. This fully discloses how the score is computed and what the output contains.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is somewhat dense but each of its four sentences contributes essential information: purpose, inputs/factors, output, and differentiation. It is efficiently worded without redundant 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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple risk factors, recommendation output) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, how it behaves, and when to use it. It leaves no major gaps for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the two parameters (from and to) with clear descriptions. The tool's description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond naming currency pair examples, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific, actionable statement: 'Corridor-specific settlement stability score (0–100) for any currency pair.' It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from siblings like oracle.stability and market.fx, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

The description not only states what the tool does but also names alternatives and clarifies when to use this one: 'this answers "is this specific corridor safe to settle through right now?"' It contrasts with oracle.stability (global) and market.fx (spot-rate focused), providing clear usage context.

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