Skip to main content
Glama

AINumbers Fintech Intelligence Suite

by co.ainumbers
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Securitization Risk Retention Check

check_securitization_risk_retention
Read-onlyIdempotent

Securitization Risk Retention Check: 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-447-securitization-risk-retention-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_securitization_risk_retention").

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": {
-    "actual_retention_pct": {
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    "breach_reasons": {
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    "compliant": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "jurisdiction": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "note": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "qrm_exemption_applied": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "regulatory_basis": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "required_retention_pct": {
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    "retained_amount_musd": {
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    "retained_interest_hedged_or_sold": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "retainer_is_sole_purpose_entity": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "retention_method": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "retention_method_valid": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "total_securitized_exposure_musd": {
-      "type": "integer"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "actual_retention_pct": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "breach_reasons": {
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "compliant": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "jurisdiction": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "note": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "qrm_exemption_applied": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "regulatory_basis": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "required_retention_pct": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "retained_amount_musd": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "retained_interest_hedged_or_sold": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "retainer_is_sole_purpose_entity": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "retention_method": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "retention_method_valid": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "total_securitized_exposure_musd": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real context beyond them: server-side vs browser delegation semantics, transient processing with no storage or logging, and export of an AP2 artifact carrying execution_hash for provenance. This is useful behavioral detail for an agent deciding how to invoke it. No contradiction with the annotations.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Front-loaded with the name, but the body contains redundancies ('OpenChainGraph compute node' and 'Deterministic OpenChainGraph compute node' in consecutive sentences) and a long raw FV-status URL. The compute/privacy/artifact sentences earn their place; the receipt-verification prose is boilerplate that dilutes the signal.

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 no output schema and an opaque policy_parameters object, the description should explain what a result communicates; instead it delegates entirely to describe_tool('check_securitization_risk_retention'). The execution/provenance mechanics are covered, but the decision semantics and result shape 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents compute, parent_hashes, and parent_tool_ids. The description restates the compute-mode semantics without adding format or constraint detail, and the critical policy_parameters object is deferred to 'see the tool's manifest', leaving the actual decision inputs opaque. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 first line identify a 'Securitization Risk Retention Check' compute node, so the domain is clear, but the description never says what the check actually evaluates (which retention rule, thresholds, or what constitutes pass/fail). It distinguishes itself from siblings only by name, not by any stated scope or comparison.

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 guidance on when to select this tool over the many sibling check_* compliance tools. The only usage-adjacent text is the compute-mode explanation and the 'use synthetic or anonymised inputs only' constraint, which address how to run it, not when it is the right tool.

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