Skip to main content
Glama

AINumbers Fintech Intelligence Suite

by co.ainumbers
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

SB 53 Frontier Scope Checker

check_sb53_frontier_scope
Read-onlyIdempotent

SB 53 Frontier Scope Checker: 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-316-sb53-frontier-scope-checker.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_sb53_frontier_scope").

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": {
-    "compute_flops": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "flop_threshold": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "is_frontier_model": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "is_large_frontier_developer": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "large_developer_revenue_threshold_usd": {
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    "obligation_set": {
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    "statute_citation": {
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "compute_flops": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "flop_threshold": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "is_frontier_model": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "is_large_frontier_developer": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "large_developer_revenue_threshold_usd": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "obligation_set": {
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "statute_citation": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the operation safe (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context: transient processing, no storage or logging, synthetic-inputs-only guidance, and the AP2 artifact / execution_hash export. These are non-obvious behavioral facts. However, it says nothing about error conditions, what a 'frontier scope' determination returns, or how the FV-status receipt relates to the result.

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 is bloated with infrastructure boilerplate (compute node, Cloudflare Workers, OpenChainGraph artifact, FV-status URL, output-schema instruction) while the actual subject — what SB 53 frontier scope means — is absent. It is not front-loaded on purpose; the first sentence restates the tool set rather than stating what the tool does.

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?

Against 4 parameters and a nested object with 0% description of the actual decision inputs, the description does not supply the missing substantive context. It never explains what inputs the frontier-scope decision consumes or what constitutes a passing scope. The compute/provenance plumbing is covered but the domain semantics are not.

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%, so the schema already documents compute, parent_hashes, parent_tool_ids, and policy_parameters. The description largely repeats the compute binding. Its only real addition is that policy_parameters field names live in the tool's manifest, but that's already implied. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identify an SB 53 scope checker, but the description never states what SB 53 is, what 'frontier' means, or what the decision function actually determines. Its opening verb is boilerplate ('OpenChainGraph compute node (compliance_mandate)') rather than a statement of what the tool checks. An agent cannot tell from the description what compliance question this answers, only that it's a deterministic compute node.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many sibling check_* compliance tools. The closest thing to guidance is the compute mode explanation, which is about execution plumbing, not tool selection. Nothing explains which inputs trigger a valid scope determination or when this tool is the right choice.

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