Skip to main content
Glama

AINumbers Fintech Intelligence Suite

by co.ainumbers

Publish Index Head

publish_index_head
Read-onlyIdempotent

Publish Index Head: OpenChainGraph compute node (attestation_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-646-compile-rebalance-evidence-pack, art-647-record-index-correction. Open at: https://ainumbers.co/chaingraph/art-658-publish-index-head.html FV-status (published/proven/still-trusted for this spec): /fv-status/8b5ae30d812cd234cfb6068c4ce2022f01d10f2a358979b0f0d73421e09d2543.json — a snapshot, not a subscription; this receipt verifies offline regardless of whether that file is ever fetched.

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.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: it is deterministic, inputs are transient and never stored/logged/retained, browser delegation is forced for gpu:true nodes, and it exports an AP2 artifact for provenance. It also discloses the FV-status receipt is a snapshot, not a subscription.

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 and information-rich, but it opens with a redundant restatement ('Publish Index Head: OpenChainGraph compute node' followed by 'Deterministic OpenChainGraph compute node'). Later sentences each earn their place, covering compute modes, retention policy, provenance, upstream artifacts, and verification receipt, though the overall length could be trimmed.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains the key outputs: a browser delegation URL for browser mode and an AP2 artifact with execution_hash for provenance. It also names upstream artifact IDs and clarifies input retention, which covers the main operational unknowns for a complex compute-node tool, though exact response envelope details are not specified.

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 all four parameters thoroughly. The description reinforces the meaning of compute modes and transient input handling, but it does not materially go beyond what the schema provides for parent_hashes, parent_tool_ids, or policy_parameters.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description identifies a specific action—publishing an Index Head on the OpenChainGraph—and ties it to concrete mechanics: it is a deterministic compute node that consumes named upstream artifacts and exports an AP2 artifact with execution_hash. The unique artifact IDs, URL, and FV-status receipt make it distinguishable from siblings like publish_market_mark_head or publish_model_risk_head.

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?

The description provides clear operational context for the compute modes and mentions specific upstream artifacts that must be consumed, implying when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling publish tools or chain-building alternatives, nor does it articulate 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 toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

Nearly every tool is an 'OpenChainGraph compute node' with identical boilerplate, and dozens of assess/check/validate/verify/lint/recompute verbs overlap heavily in purpose. An agent cannot reliably tell which of many similarly scoped tools should handle a given compliance or analytics question.

Naming Consistency2/5

Most names are snake_case, so there is superficial consistency, but the verb vocabulary is enormous and unpredictable, mixing build/compute/check/validate/verify/lint/assess/classify/score/reconcile and more. Several noun-first names such as pain001_validate, recon_match, and ha_record_validate further break the pattern.

Tool Count1/5

695 tools is far beyond any practical agent-facing surface, exceeding even the extreme end of the calibration range. This is a full product catalog dumped into one MCP server rather than a curated, usable tool set.

Completeness3/5

The suite covers an extremely wide range of fintech and regulatory calculators, validators, chain tools, and discovery utilities, so coverage is broad rather than thin. However, the lack of a clear domain boundary makes completeness nearly impossible to assess, and the heavy overlap suggests the surface was generated rather than intentionally designed.

Resources