AINumbers Fintech Intelligence Suite

NAIC RBC Action Level Calculator

compute_rbc_action_level

Read-onlyIdempotent

NAIC RBC Action Level Calculator: 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. Consumes upstream artifacts from: art-253-run-illustration-selfsupport-test. Output feeds: art-257-calculate-claims-stp-economics. Open at: https://ainumbers.co/chaingraph/art-254-compute-rbc-action-level.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("compute_rbc_action_level").

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`compute`	No	Compute 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_hashes`	No	execution_hash values from upstream ChainGraph AP2 artifacts to chain from (sets chain.parent_hashes in the export).
`parent_tool_ids`	No	tool_id values matching parent_hashes, in the same order.
`policy_parameters`	No	Input 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.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 18, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "action_level_code": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "action_level_description": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "action_level_label": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "action_levels_reference": {
-      "items": {
-        "properties": {
-          "code": {
-            "type": "string"
-          },
-          "description": {
-            "type": "string"
-          },
-          "label": {
-            "type": "string"
-          },
-          "rbc_pct_acl": {
-            "type": "integer"
-          }
-        },
-        "type": "object"
-      },
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    "authorized_control_level": {
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    "headroom_to_next_level_pct": {
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    "insurer_type": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "not_legal_advice": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "pii_note": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "prior_year_rbc_ratio": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "rbc_ratio_pct": {
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    "regulatory_basis": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "table_source": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "table_version": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "threshold_breached_pct": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "total_adjusted_capital": {
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    "trend_test_applicable": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "trend_test_triggered": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "two_year_rbc_ratio": {
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null

Changed1 schema field changedSep 3, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "action_level_code": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "action_level_description": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "action_level_label": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "action_levels_reference": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "code": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "description": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "label": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "rbc_pct_acl": {
+            "type": "integer"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "authorized_control_level": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "headroom_to_next_level_pct": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "insurer_type": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "not_legal_advice": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "pii_note": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "prior_year_rbc_ratio": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "rbc_ratio_pct": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "regulatory_basis": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "table_source": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "table_version": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "threshold_breached_pct": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "total_adjusted_capital": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "trend_test_applicable": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "trend_test_triggered": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "two_year_rbc_ratio": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedJul 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive/openWorld, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: transient processing with no storage/logging/retention, server-vs-browser execution rules, an exported AP2 artifact carrying execution_hash, and explicit upstream/downstream artifact chaining.

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 a dense run-on paragraph that leads with infrastructure abstractions rather than the tool's purpose, and it embeds an unexplained FV-status hash URL and offline-verification caveat that do not help an agent invoke the tool. Several sentences do not earn their place.

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-param nested-object compute node with no output schema, the description covers chaining, compute modes, and privacy, and points to describe_tool for the output schema. However it leaves the actual decision inputs (policy_parameters field names) to an external manifest, so an agent cannot fully construct a call from this definition alone.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the compute-mode behaviour, which the schema already documents, and defers policy_parameters field names to 'the tool's manifest' rather than adding semantics of its own.

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 title and opening phrase identify it as the NAIC RBC Action Level calculator, a compliance compute node. But the body never explains what an RBC action level is or what the tool actually computes, spending its space on compute-mode plumbing instead. It also fails to distinguish itself from the close sibling compute_rbc_action_level_private.

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 guidance is a privacy constraint ('Use synthetic or anonymised inputs only') and the compute-mode semantics. There is no when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to the private sibling or to calculate_naic_clo_rbc_factor.

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 tools Inspect

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.

NAIC RBC Action Level Calculator

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

Resources