Skip to main content
Glama

AINumbers Fintech Intelligence Suite

by co.ainumbers
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

FSMA 204 Critical Tracking Event (CTE) Validator

validate_fsma204_cte
Read-onlyIdempotent

FSMA 204 Critical Tracking Event (CTE) Validator: 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. Output feeds: art-119-traceability-lot-code-linker. Open at: https://ainumbers.co/chaingraph/art-118-fsma204-cte-validator.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("validate_fsma204_cte").

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": {
-    "cte_type": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "cte_valid": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "ftl_food": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "missing_kdes": {
-      "type": "array"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "cte_type": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "cte_valid": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "ftl_food": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "missing_kdes": {
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds real behavior: inputs are processed transiently and not stored/logged/retained, synthetic or anonymised inputs are required, an AP2 artifact with execution_hash is exported for chain provenance, and compute:'auto' vs 'browser' execution semantics. These are additive traits the annotations do not carry.

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?

Front-loaded with a restated title and boilerplate ('Deterministic OpenChainGraph compute node') before any useful content, and trailing link/FV-status receipt text with a long hash adds bulk. The genuinely useful behavioral statements are mid-paragraph, and some sentences merely echo the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a node with nested objects, a required kernel input (policy_parameters) whose field names are deferred to an unspecified 'manifest', and no output schema, the description does not tell the agent what to put in policy_parameters or what the validated result contains. Deferring to describe_tool and a snapshot URL leaves the core calling contract 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 the baseline is 3. The description largely restates the compute enum already documented in the schema and adds nothing about parent_hashes/parent_tool_ids or about the free-form policy_parameters object, which the schema itself punts on with 'See the tool's manifest for field names.'

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/name identifies a specific verb and resource (FSMA 204 CTE validation), but the body never explains what CTE validation actually checks or produces beyond calling itself a 'deterministic OpenChainGraph compute node' and 'compliance_mandate' node. It does not distinguish this validator from the many other validate_* siblings, so the agent learns the label but not the operation.

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 / when-not-to-use guidance versus alternatives. The only routing hint is 'Output feeds: art-119-traceability-lot-code-linker', which describes downstream chaining, not selection between this and other validators. Compute-mode guidance exists but is infrastructure, not usage.

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