AINumbers Fintech Intelligence Suite

Halt + Staleness Collateral Haircut

compute_stock_token_collateral_haircut

Read-onlyIdempotent

Halt + Staleness Collateral Haircut: OpenChainGraph compute node (collateral_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: 505-tokenized-collateral-eligibility-checker, 508-repo-haircut-collateral-calculator. Open at: https://ainumbers.co/chaingraph/art-320-rhc-collateral-haircut.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_stock_token_collateral_haircut").

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": {
-    "adjusted_collateral_value": {
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    "base_haircut": {
-      "type": "number"
-    },
-    "extra_haircut": {
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    "feed_stale": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "final_haircut": {
-      "type": "number"
-    },
-    "liquidation_risk": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "sequencer_down_grace_expired": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "sequencer_down_within_grace": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "underlying_halted": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "verdict": {
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null

Changed1 schema field changedSep 3, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "adjusted_collateral_value": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "base_haircut": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "extra_haircut": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "feed_stale": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "final_haircut": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "liquidation_risk": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "sequencer_down_grace_expired": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "sequencer_down_within_grace": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "underlying_halted": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "verdict": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedJul 16, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

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 substance: transient processing with no storage/logging/retention, server-vs-browser execution semantics, and an exported AP2 artifact carrying execution_hash for provenance. This is genuine behavioral context beyond 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?

The description is dense but carries boilerplate repetition ('OpenChainGraph compute node' twice) and mixes execution-model detail, privacy notes, provenance, upstream links, and a raw FV-status URL/path. The core purpose is not front-loaded; the reader wades through infrastructure text to reach the operation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-required-param compute node with no output schema, the description covers execution modes, input privacy constraints, upstream chaining, and the exported artifact's provenance field, and points elsewhere for the output shape. It is reasonably complete, though the actual decision-function inputs remain opaque and the FV-status receipt detail is noise.

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% and the schema fully documents all four parameters, including the compute enum and the parent_hashes/parent_tool_ids pairing. The description echoes the compute-mode semantics but adds little, and for policy_parameters it only defers to 'the tool's manifest for field names', which the schema also does. Baseline 3.

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 opening sentence restates the title ("Halt + Staleness Collateral Haircut") and labels it a 'compute node (collateral_mandate)', which conveys the domain but never spells out the verb+resource operation the way the name implies (computing a haircut). It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like calculate_repo_haircut or compute_basel_haircut_adjusted_exposure. Purpose is inferable but mostly tautological.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It names the upstream artifacts it consumes (505-tokenized-collateral-eligibility-checker, 508-repo-haircut-collateral-calculator), which implies where this sits in a chain, and it warns 'Use synthetic or anonymised inputs only.' However it never says when to choose this tool over an alternative haircut calculator, nor states exclusions.

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.

Halt + Staleness Collateral Haircut

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

Resources