Skip to main content
Glama

AINumbers Fintech Intelligence Suite

by co.ainumbers
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Arc Partner Stablecoin Onboarding Conformance

score_partner_stablecoin_readiness
Read-onlyIdempotent

Arc Partner Stablecoin Onboarding Conformance: 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-42-arc-fit-diagnostic. Output feeds: art-45-arc-xreserve-linter. Open at: https://ainumbers.co/chaingraph/art-110-arc-partner-stablecoin-onboarding.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("score_partner_stablecoin_readiness").

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": {
-    "ccy": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "composite_grade": {
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    "eligible": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "gaps": {
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    "grade": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "home_regime": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "reserve_score": {
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    "risk_score": {
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    "tech_score": {
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    "verdict": {
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "ccy": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "composite_grade": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "eligible": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "gaps": {
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "grade": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "home_regime": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "reserve_score": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "risk_score": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "tech_score": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "verdict": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds genuine behavior beyond them: transient processing with no storage/logging/retention, a 'use synthetic or anonymised inputs only' constraint, compute-mode fallback semantics, and export of an AP2 artifact carrying execution_hash for provenance. These disclosures materially inform safe invocation.

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 with infrastructure boilerplate, a URL, and a long FV-status hash, while front-loading a restatement of the title. Useful facts (transience, provenance export, pipeline links) are mixed with low-value scaffolding, so it earns partial credit but is longer than necessary.

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-parameter compute node with no output schema, the description covers compute modes, data-handling constraints, provenance export, and upstream/downstream chaining, and it explicitly routes to describe_tool for the output schema. This is nearly complete for correct invocation, with only the actual scoring semantics left unstated.

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 (with enum), parent_hashes, parent_tool_ids and policy_parameters. The description largely restates the compute-mode behavior already in the schema and only gestures at policy_parameters by pointing to 'the tool's manifest for field names', adding little beyond structured data. Baseline 3 applies.

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 title and name convey that this scores Arc partner stablecoin onboarding conformance, but the description itself never states the scoring/resource verb in plain terms — it opens with a restatement of the title and then describes infrastructure ('OpenChainGraph compute node (compliance_mandate)'). An agent gets the gist from the name/title, not from an explicit description of what is being scored or how, so purpose is implied rather than stated.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given, and no siblings are named as alternatives. The upstream/downstream artifact references ('consumes from art-42-arc-fit-diagnostic', 'feeds art-45-arc-xreserve-linter') hint at pipeline position but do not tell the agent when to pick this tool over route_partner_stablecoin_jurisdiction or run_arc_fit_diagnostic.

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