Skip to main content
Glama

AINumbers Fintech Intelligence Suite

by co.ainumbers

E-Invoice Jurisdiction Mandate Router

route_einvoice_jurisdiction_mandate
Read-onlyIdempotent

E-Invoice Jurisdiction Mandate Router: 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-294-einvoice-vat-calc-verifier. Output feeds: art-296-einvoice-transmission-receipt-builder. Open at: https://ainumbers.co/chaingraph/art-295-einvoice-jurisdiction-mandate-router.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

B3.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses that inputs are processed transiently and not stored or logged, that the node is deterministic, and that it exports an AP2 artifact with execution_hash for provenance. It also explains compute mode behavior and provides a verification snapshot. These details add genuine insight into the tool's behavior without contradicting annotations.

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 description is a single dense block of text, containing technical details on compute bindings, provenance hashes, artifact IDs, links, and FV-status. It front-loads the main purpose but is unnecessarily verbose for an agent needing to invoke the tool correctly. Several sentences (e.g., the FV-status snapshot explanation) could be relegated to external documentation, making it less concise than ideal.

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 complex compute node with no output schema, the description covers compute modes, consumption/production of artifacts, provenance requirements, and a URL for further reference. It omits explicit output format details, but given the absence of an output schema and the provision of chain and provenance context, the description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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% with each parameter (compute, parent_hashes, parent_tool_ids, policy_parameters) having a descriptive field in the input schema. The tool description does not add meaning beyond these schema descriptions; it reiterates compute modes and mentions policy_parameters but without new semantic depth. Therefore a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 description clearly identifies the tool as an 'E-Invoice Jurisdiction Mandate Router' and an 'OpenChainGraph compute node (compliance_mandate)', indicating it determines jurisdiction mandates for e-invoices. It specifies a distinct domain and function, distinguishing it from other routing tools like route_mica_transitional_deadline by its specific subject matter. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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 description provides detailed technical behavior (compute modes, provenance, FV-status) but no direct guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It mentions consuming upstream artifact art-294 and feeding art-296, implying a pipeline context, but does not state conditions for use or exclusions. This leaves usage context largely implicit.

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