AINumbers Fintech Intelligence Suite

Sanctions Screening-Program Quality Scorer

score_sanctions_screening_quality

Read-onlyIdempotent

Sanctions Screening-Program Quality Scorer: OpenChainGraph compute node (model_governance). 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-92-screening-list-coverage-checker, art-93-fuzzy-match-calibration-scorer. Output feeds: cry-05-agent-action-audit-trail-aggregator. Open at: https://ainumbers.co/chaingraph/art-97-sanctions-screening-quality-scorer.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_sanctions_screening_quality").

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": {
-    "component_scores": {
-      "properties": {
-        "alert_tuning": {
-          "type": "integer"
-        },
-        "escalation_workflow": {
-          "type": "integer"
-        },
-        "list_coverage": {
-          "type": "integer"
-        },
-        "match_calibration": {
-          "type": "integer"
-        },
-        "model_validation": {
-          "type": "integer"
-        }
-      },
-      "type": "object"
-    },
-    "component_weights": {
-      "properties": {
-        "alert_tuning": {
-          "type": "integer"
-        },
-        "escalation_workflow": {
-          "type": "integer"
-        },
-        "list_coverage": {
-          "type": "integer"
-        },
-        "match_calibration": {
-          "type": "integer"
-        },
-        "model_validation": {
-          "type": "integer"
-        }
-      },
-      "type": "object"
-    },
-    "composite_pct": {
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    "improvement_priorities": {
-      "items": {
-        "properties": {
-          "action": {
-            "type": "string"
-          },
-          "current_score": {
-            "type": "integer"
-          },
-          "dimension": {
-            "type": "string"
-          }
-        },
-        "type": "object"
-      },
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    "note": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "program_grade": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "reference_version": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "wolfsberg_note": {
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null

Changed1 schema field changedSep 3, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "component_scores": {
+      "properties": {
+        "alert_tuning": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "escalation_workflow": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "list_coverage": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "match_calibration": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "model_validation": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "component_weights": {
+      "properties": {
+        "alert_tuning": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "escalation_workflow": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "list_coverage": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "match_calibration": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "model_validation": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "composite_pct": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "improvement_priorities": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "action": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "current_score": {
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "dimension": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "note": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "program_grade": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "reference_version": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "wolfsberg_note": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedJun 22, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real context beyond them: deterministic execution, compute-mode delegation semantics ('browser' returns a delegation URL, gpu:true always delegates), transient processing with no logging or retention, and export of an AP2 artifact with execution_hash for chain provenance. It even warns to use synthetic/anonymised inputs only. It stops short of describing the scoring behavior itself.

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 text is a dense run-on of infrastructure boilerplate — compute-binding mechanics, a full FV-status filename with a 64-char hash, and an artifact URL — that crowds out the functional statement an agent actually needs. The one genuinely useful signal (upstream/downstream chaining) is buried mid-paragraph. It is not wasteful in the sense of padding words, but it is badly front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description points at describe_tool for the shape of the result, and the input schema fully documents the 4 parameters, so those gaps are covered elsewhere. What remains missing is the substantive part: what the quality score evaluates, what policy_parameters fields the kernel expects, and what the AP2 artifact contains. Adequate for calling the tool mechanically, thin for calling it intelligently.

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 baseline is 3. The description largely repeats what the schema already documents (compute modes and their behavior), and for policy_parameters it defers entirely to 'the tool's manifest' — the same deferral the schema makes — so no additional field-level meaning is added. No compensation is needed, but no value is added either.

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 name/title states the resource (a sanctions screening-program quality score) but the description never explains what the score measures, what it returns, or how it differs from siblings like run_sanctions_screening_fit or screen_sanctions_private. It identifies itself through provenance metadata (upstream artifacts art-92/art-93, downstream cry-05) rather than through a functional statement. Purpose is implied but never crisply specified.

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 'Consumes upstream artifacts from...' and 'Output feeds...' lines imply this runs after list-coverage and fuzzy-match calibration scoring, which is useful workflow context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no comparison against the many sibling sanctions tools. Usage is inferable but not instructed.

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.

Sanctions Screening-Program Quality Scorer

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

Resources