Skip to main content
Glama

AINumbers Fintech Intelligence Suite

by co.ainumbers
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

TMPG Fails-Charge Recompute

recompute_tmpg_fails_charge
Read-onlyIdempotent

TMPG Fails-Charge Recompute: OpenChainGraph compute node (compliance_control). 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. Open at: https://ainumbers.co/chaingraph/art-575-tmpg-fails-charge-recompute.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("recompute_tmpg_fails_charge").

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": {
-    "clause_note": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "decision": {
-      "properties": {
-        "execution_state": {
-          "type": "string"
-        },
-        "reason": {
-          "type": "string"
-        }
-      },
-      "type": "object"
-    },
-    "determinations": {
-      "items": {
-        "properties": {
-          "claimed_charge_minor": {
-            "type": "integer"
-          },
-          "days_failed": {
-            "type": "integer"
-          },
-          "delta_minor": {
-            "type": "integer"
-          },
-          "fail_id": {
-            "type": "string"
-          },
-          "par_amount_minor": {
-            "type": "integer"
-          },
-          "rate_diff_bps": {
-            "type": "integer"
-          },
-          "recomputed_charge_minor": {
-            "type": "integer"
-          },
-          "reference_rate_bps": {
-            "type": "integer"
-          },
-          "verdict": {
-            "type": "string"
-          }
-        },
-        "type": "object"
-      },
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    "diff_tolerance_minor": {
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    "fail_count": {
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    "rejected_inputs": {
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    "scope_note": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "total_claimed_charge_minor": {
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    "total_recomputed_charge_minor": {
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    "verdict": {
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "clause_note": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "decision": {
+      "properties": {
+        "execution_state": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "reason": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "determinations": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "claimed_charge_minor": {
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "days_failed": {
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "delta_minor": {
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "fail_id": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "par_amount_minor": {
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "rate_diff_bps": {
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "recomputed_charge_minor": {
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "reference_rate_bps": {
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "verdict": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "diff_tolerance_minor": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "fail_count": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "rejected_inputs": {
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "scope_note": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "total_claimed_charge_minor": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "total_recomputed_charge_minor": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "verdict": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive already in annotations, the description adds genuine behavioral context: determinism, default server-side execution with a registered kernel, browser delegation for gpu:true or compute:'browser', transient non-retained input handling, and an exported AP2 artifact carrying execution_hash for provenance. That is meaningful disclosure beyond the annotations, though return-format specifics are absent.

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 compute-mode and privacy sentences earn their place and the deterministic/artifact facts are front-loaded well, but the long FV-status hash path and the raw URL add bulk without helping an agent decide or invoke the tool. Structure is adequate but not tight.

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?

There is no output schema, and the tool is a nested-object compute node, so the description should anchor what is computed and returned; instead it points to describe_tool and the manifest. It covers execution mode, privacy and artifact export adequately, but the decision-function inputs remain undocumented.

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 all four parameters (including the compute enum and the chaining hashes) are already documented in the schema; the description only restates the compute-mode story. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

It names a specific verb (recompute) and a domain-specific resource (TMPG fails-charge) that is distinguishable from siblings, but it never explains what the recompute actually calculates. Most of the text describes the hosting/compute infrastructure rather than the tool's function, and it defers field semantics to 'the tool's manifest', leaving the core purpose opaque.

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 gives one real usage constraint ('Use synthetic or anonymised inputs only') and explains the compute-mode choice, which is useful. However, there is no guidance on when to pick this recompute over the many sibling recompute_* tools, and no exclusion conditions.

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