Skip to main content
Glama

AINumbers Fintech Intelligence Suite

by co.ainumbers
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Swift CSP Assessor Independence Eligibility

check_assessor_independence
Read-onlyIdempotent

Swift CSP Assessor Independence Eligibility: OpenChainGraph compute node (compliance_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. Open at: https://ainumbers.co/chaingraph/art-487-assessor-independence-check.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("check_assessor_independence").

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": {
-    "architecture_type": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "assessment_date": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "assessment_route": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "attestation_deadline": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "cert_eligible": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "date_eligible": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "eligible": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "failing_predicate": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "independence_eligible": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "overlapping_identities": {
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    "route_eligible": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "architecture_type": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "assessment_date": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "assessment_route": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "attestation_deadline": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "cert_eligible": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "date_eligible": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "eligible": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "failing_predicate": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "independence_eligible": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "overlapping_identities": {
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "route_eligible": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: inputs are processed transiently and not stored/logged/retained, browser mode returns a delegation URL rather than a result, and the call exports an AP2 artifact with execution_hash. These are non-obvious traits an agent should know before invoking.

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 opening is front-loaded, but signal density is low: 'OpenChainGraph compute node' is stated twice, the compute-mode paragraph restates the schema verbatim, and a long FV-status snapshot/receipt paragraph is irrelevant to selecting or invoking the tool. Multiple sentences do not earn their place for the calling agent.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 4-parameter compliance check with a nested policy_parameters object and no output schema, the description never explains what fields policy_parameters must carry, deferring to an external manifest, and it never states what the returned AP2 artifact contains beyond an execution_hash. It points to describe_tool for the output shape, which leaves the calling contract incomplete.

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 baseline is 3. The description's compute-mode text merely duplicates the schema's own compute enum description and adds no syntax or semantics beyond it, and policy_parameters is still left as 'see the tool's manifest' in both places.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The name and title ('Swift CSP Assessor Independence Eligibility') identify a specific resource, but the description itself only restates the title and labels it an 'OpenChainGraph compute node'. It never says what the check actually evaluates or what independence criteria are applied, so the agent learns the topic but not the operation. Sibling tools like attest_calc_agent_independence are not distinguished.

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?

The only usage direction is 'Use synthetic or anonymised inputs only' and the compute-mode mechanics, which are already in the schema. There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisite, or routing to any of the many adjacent independence/attestation siblings.

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