Skip to main content
Glama

AINumbers Fintech Intelligence Suite

by co.ainumbers
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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/ca4e1dca8343f788a296161f0e19712f7afb7e5eaec0431081e715a4cc34b784.json — a snapshot, not a subscription; this receipt verifies offline regardless of whether that file is ever fetched. Summary: Computes NAIC Risk-Based Capital (RBC) action level classification for US P&C, life, and health insurers. Outputs: action_level_code, action_level_description, action_level_label, action_levels_reference, authorized_control_level, headroom_to_next_level_pct, insurer_type, not_legal_advice, pii_note, prior_year_rbc_ratio, rbc_ratio_pct, regulatory_basis, table_source, table_version, threshold_breached_pct, total_adjusted_capital, trend_test_applicable, trend_test_triggered, two_year_rbc_ratio. Output schema: call describe_tool("compute_rbc_action_level").

Input 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". Required: authorized_control_level, insurer_type, prior_year_rbc_ratio, total_adjusted_capital, two_year_rbc_ratio. Unknown keys are refused.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / policy_parameters / description
      Previous value: -"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."New value: +"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\". Required: authorized_control_level, insurer_type, prior_year_rbc_ratio, total_adjusted_capital, two_year_rbc_ratio. Unknown keys are refused."
    • addedInput schema / properties / policy_parameters / properties
      Added value: +{
+  "authorized_control_level": {},
+  "insurer_type": {},
+  "prior_year_rbc_ratio": {},
+  "total_adjusted_capital": {},
+  "two_year_rbc_ratio": {}
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / policy_parameters / propertyNames
      Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • 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
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • 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"
+}
  5. Added

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations it adds real context: inputs are processed transiently and not stored or logged, an AP2 artifact with execution_hash is exported for chain provenance, and it declares which upstream artifact it consumes and which downstream tool consumes its output. It also enumerates the ~20 output fields, which matters because there is no output schema. Repeated compute-mode text duplicates the schema rather than adding to it.

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 OpenChainGraph boilerplate (compute binding, FV-status receipt hash, artifact URL) that precedes the actual purpose. The one-sentence summary of what the tool computes arrives near the end, which inverts front-loading. Several clauses restate the schema verbatim.

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, the enumerated output fields and the pointer to describe_tool are genuinely useful, and privacy/chaining behavior is covered. What's missing is any explanation of the input domain — required policy parameters and how the RBC ratio thresholds are applied — so an agent still cannot reason about the inputs from the description 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 the schema already documents compute, parent_hashes, parent_tool_ids and the policy_parameters nested requirement list. The description's compute-mode explanation is a verbatim restatement of the schema field description and adds nothing, and it says nothing about what the policy_parameters values mean or where thresholds come from. Baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The 'Summary' sentence gives a specific verb and resource: computes NAIC RBC action level classification for US P&C, life and health insurers. However, it is buried at the end behind chain-plumbing boilerplate, and it never distinguishes itself from the sibling compute_rbc_action_level_private or calculate_naic_clo_rbc_factor, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 reach for this tool versus the private variant or the other RBC siblings. The only guidance-like sentence is the input constraint 'Use synthetic or anonymised inputs only', which is a data-handling rule, not a use case selector. The upstream/downstream artifact ids hint at chain position but don't tell an agent when to call it.

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