Skip to main content
Glama

AINumbers Fintech Intelligence Suite

by co.ainumbers
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Settlement-Asset & Legal-Finality Classifier

classify_settlement_asset_finality
Read-onlyIdempotent

Settlement-Asset & Legal-Finality Classifier: OpenChainGraph compute node (compliance_mandate). Regulatory deadline: 2026-Q3 (ECB Pontes pilot end-Q3 2026; DTCC Collateral AppChain production Oct 2026. Verify SFD/PFMI designations against current regulatory status before that date.). 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. Consumes upstream artifacts from: art-56-tokenized-settlement-fit-diagnostic. Output feeds: art-58-cross-network-settlement-validator, 506-onchain-cash-leg-finality-checker, 510-digital-asset-regulatory-classifier. Open at: https://ainumbers.co/chaingraph/art-59-settlement-asset-finality-classifier.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("classify_settlement_asset_finality").

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": {
-    "applicable_regime": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "finality_gaps": {
-      "items": {
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    "finality_tier": {
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    "note": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "recommendation": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "settlement_asset_class": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "singleness_verdict": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "status_asof": {
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "applicable_regime": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "finality_gaps": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "finality_tier": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "note": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "recommendation": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "settlement_asset_class": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "singleness_verdict": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status_asof": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses real behavior: inputs are processed transiently and not stored or logged, compute:"auto" runs server-side on Cloudflare Workers while compute:"browser" returns a delegation URL, and it exports an AP2 artifact carrying an execution_hash for provenance. That is meaningful context an agent cannot get from the annotations alone.

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 text is dominated by boilerplate that does not help invoke the tool: a speculative regulatory deadline sentence, a long fv-status snapshot disclaimer, and a "Open at: <url>" line. The genuinely useful information (transient processing, compute modes, artifact chaining) is buried mid-paragraph rather than front-loaded.

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?

For a 4-parameter tool with a free-form nested policy_parameters object and no output schema, the description omits what fields the policy_parameters decision function expects, deferring to "See the tool's manifest." It correctly points to describe_tool for the output schema, and annotations cover safety, but the key input contract remains underspecified.

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. The description only echoes the compute-mode semantics already in the schema and adds nothing about the shape of policy_parameters or the ordering/pairing of parent hashes. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description restates the title ("Settlement-Asset & Legal-Finality Classifier") and then pivots to registry infrastructure ("OpenChainGraph compute node (compliance_mandate)"), compute binding, and an fv-status hash. It never states the actual classification the tool performs, which assets it covers, or what legal-finality criteria it applies, and it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as classify_settlement_finality or classify_digital_asset_regulatory.

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 closest thing to usage guidance is "Use synthetic or anonymised inputs only" and a note to verify SFD/PFMI designations before 2026-Q3. There is no statement of when to select this classifier over a sibling, no prerequisites, and no exclusions; the upstream/downstream artifact lists imply a position in a chain but not an invocation cue.

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