Skip to main content
Glama

AINumbers Fintech Intelligence Suite

by co.ainumbers
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

On-Chain Repo Haircut Calculator

calculate_repo_haircut
Read-onlyIdempotent

On-Chain Repo Haircut Calculator: OpenChainGraph compute node (collateral_mandate). Deterministic OpenChainGraph compute node. By default (compute:"auto") inputs are computed server-side on Cloudflare Workers for gpu:false nodes with a registered kernel; compute:"browser" forces client-side execution and returns a browser delegation URL instead. gpu:true nodes always delegate to the browser. Inputs are processed transiently to compute the response and are not stored, logged, or retained. Use synthetic or anonymised inputs only. Exports an AP2 artifact with execution_hash for chain provenance. Output feeds: 505-tokenized-collateral-eligibility-checker, 506-onchain-cash-leg-finality-checker. Open at: https://ainumbers.co/tools/508-repo-haircut-collateral-calculator.html FV-status (published/proven/still-trusted for this spec): /fv-status/8498d0819c941fdb731f9e10f5d93ee929026919cb111a42149821b48b5ac180.json — a snapshot, not a subscription; this receipt verifies offline regardless of whether that file is ever fetched. Output schema: call describe_tool("calculate_repo_haircut").

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
computeNoCompute mode (v0.4 Compute Binding). "auto" (default) = server for gpu:false nodes with registered kernels; "server" = force server-side; "browser" = always return browser delegation URL. gpu:true nodes always delegate.
parent_hashesNoexecution_hash values from upstream ChainGraph AP2 artifacts to chain from (sets chain.parent_hashes in the export).
parent_tool_idsNotool_id values matching parent_hashes, in the same order.
policy_parametersNoInput parameters for this tool's decision function. For gpu:false nodes with a registered kernel, these are computed server-side when compute is "auto" or "server". See the tool's manifest for field names.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "base_haircut_pct": {
-      "type": "number"
-    },
-    "canton_haircut_pct": {
-      "type": "number"
-    },
-    "flags": {
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    "initial_margin": {
-      "type": "number"
-    },
-    "legacy_haircut_pct": {
-      "type": "number"
-    },
-    "sft_floor_applied": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "total_haircut_pct": {
-      "type": "number"
-    },
-    "vm_threshold": {
-      "type": "number"
-    },
-    "weekend_saving_pct": {
-      "type": "number"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "base_haircut_pct": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "canton_haircut_pct": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "flags": {
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "initial_margin": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "legacy_haircut_pct": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "sft_floor_applied": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "total_haircut_pct": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "vm_threshold": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "weekend_saving_pct": {
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: inputs are processed transiently and not stored or logged, synthetic/anonymised inputs only, an AP2 artifact with execution_hash is exported for chain provenance, and compute:'browser' returns a delegation URL while gpu:true nodes always delegate. This is real disclosure beyond the structured fields, though return shape details remain thin.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description opens with infrastructure boilerplate and a redundant repeat ('OpenChainGraph compute node... Deterministic OpenChainGraph compute node') before the purpose is clear, and it pads the end with a URL plus a long FV-status receipt/hash sentence that does not help an agent select or invoke the tool. It is long and back-loaded rather than front-loaded on what the calculation does.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description adequately covers data handling, chaining and artifact export. But the core decision function's inputs are opaque — policy_parameters is an untyped bag whose fields are deferred to an external manifest — so the agent lacks the semantics needed to supply the actual haircut inputs.

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%, so the schema already documents compute, parent_hashes, parent_tool_ids and policy_parameters, establishing a baseline of 3. The description's parameter-adjacent text (chaining semantics, compute modes) largely restates the schema, and it explicitly defers policy_parameters field names to 'the tool's manifest', adding no syntax or format detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The name/title state a specific verb+resource ('On-Chain Repo Haircut Calculator') and the description adds the node identity ('compute node (collateral_mandate)'). However, it never actually says what the haircut computation determines or how it differs from close siblings such as compute_stock_token_collateral_haircut or compute_basel_haircut_adjusted_exposure, so an agent cannot distinguish the collateral-haircut tools from the text alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives. The 'Output feeds:' line names downstream consumers, which is chaining context rather than routing guidance, and the compute-mode discussion is parameter behavior, not tool selection. An agent gets no help choosing between this and the many other haircut/collateral tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All AINumbers Fintech Intelligence Suite toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources