Skip to main content
Glama

DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

by io.github.untitledfinancial

stability.settlement_window

Read-onlyIdempotent

Optimal settlement execution window analysis for a specific cross-border payment over the next 72 hours. Generates 18 × 4-hour time slots and scores each by composite risk: corridor stability, FX session liquidity, cascade level decay/growth based on macro outlook, weekend/off-hours penalty, and counterparty ESG tier (if LEI provided). Returns a ranked window schedule with OPTIMAL / GOOD / ACCEPTABLE / AVOID classification per slot, a best-window recommendation, and large-amount splitting guidance for settlements ≥ $5M. Use this before scheduling large cross-border settlements to minimize execution risk.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesDestination currency ISO-4217 (e.g. "BRL").
leiNoOptional 20-char GLEIF LEI of counterparty — fetches live ESG tier to apply counterparty risk penalty.
fromYesSource currency ISO-4217 (e.g. "USD").
amountNoSettlement amount (default 1,000,000). Used for large-amount guidance ≥$5M.
currencyNoCurrency of the amount (defaults to from).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
windowsNo18 × 4-hour slots: startUtc, endUtc, compositeScore, tier, components, recommendation, rationale
marketContextNoglobalOracleScore, corridorAdjustment, cascadeLevel, globalOutlook, regulatoryFlags
recommendationNobestWindow (ISO datetime), bestScore, optimalCount, goodCount, summary, largeAmountNote

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: generates 18 time slots, scores by composite risk factors, returns classifications, and includes large-amount splitting guidance. It does not contradict annotations and enriches beyond what structured fields provide.

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 a single dense paragraph with multiple clauses, but every sentence adds specific information about slots, scoring factors, output classification, or usage timing. It is appropriately compact for the tool's complexity, though a more structured bulleted format could improve scannability.

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?

The description covers all key behavioral aspects: 18×4-hour slots, composite risk dimensions, classification categories, best-window output, and large-amount guidance. It assumes an output schema (which exists) for return details, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and each parameter is already well-documented. The description reinforces the role of `lei` and `amount` in the analysis, but adds no meaning substantially beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 'Optimal settlement execution window analysis' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like settlement.execute (execution), settlement.quote (quoting), and stability.corridor (corridor-specific analysis) by emphasizing a comprehensive 72-hour window scoring approach.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this before scheduling large cross-border settlements to minimize execution risk', providing clear when-to-use context. However, it does not mention alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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