Skip to main content
Glama

AINumbers Fintech Intelligence Suite

by co.ainumbers
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

E-Invoice VAT Calculation Verifier

verify_einvoice_vat_calc
Read-onlyIdempotent

E-Invoice VAT Calculation Verifier: 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-293-einvoice-format-validator. Output feeds: art-295-einvoice-jurisdiction-mandate-router. Open at: https://ainumbers.co/chaingraph/art-294-einvoice-vat-calc-verifier.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("verify_einvoice_vat_calc").

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": {
-    "consistent": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "grand_total_computed": {
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    "grand_total_delta": {
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    "parse_error": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "rounding": {
-      "properties": {
-        "granularity": {
-          "type": "string"
-        },
-        "method": {
-          "type": "string"
-        }
-      },
-      "type": "object"
-    },
-    "subtotal_deltas": {
-      "items": {
-        "properties": {
-          "matched_asserted_subtotal": {
-            "type": "boolean"
-          },
-          "tax_amount_computed": {
-            "type": "integer"
-          },
-          "tax_amount_delta": {
-            "type": "integer"
-          },
-          "taxable_amount_computed": {
-            "type": "integer"
-          },
-          "taxable_amount_delta": {
-            "type": "integer"
-          },
-          "vat_category": {
-            "type": "string"
-          },
-          "vat_rate_pct": {
-            "type": "integer"
-          }
-        },
-        "type": "object"
-      },
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    "tax_total_computed": {
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    "tax_total_delta": {
-      "type": "integer"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "consistent": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "grand_total_computed": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "grand_total_delta": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "parse_error": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "rounding": {
+      "properties": {
+        "granularity": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "method": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "subtotal_deltas": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "matched_asserted_subtotal": {
+            "type": "boolean"
+          },
+          "tax_amount_computed": {
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "tax_amount_delta": {
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "taxable_amount_computed": {
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "taxable_amount_delta": {
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "vat_category": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "vat_rate_pct": {
+            "type": "integer"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "tax_total_computed": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "tax_total_delta": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: deterministic computation, transient processing with no storage/logging/retention, synthetic-input guidance, compute-mode routing (server vs browser delegation, gpu:true always delegates), and an execution_hash-bearing AP2 artifact.

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 opening lines and compute-mode/consequence statements earn their place, but the FV-status receipt URL plus a 64-hex hash and the 'Output schema: call describe_tool(...)' line are noise that bloats an otherwise signal-rich description. Structure is front-loaded reasonably but not tight.

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?

With no output schema in the definition, the description does cover the return artifact (AP2 artifact with execution_hash) and its chain position, and explains compute routing. It stops short of describing the actual verification result fields, deferring to describe_tool, which leaves a modest gap.

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 compute/parent_hashes/parent_tool_ids/policy_parameters semantics are already fully documented in the schema itself. The description's compute-mode discussion only restates what the schema field already says, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: verifying an e-invoice VAT calculation, and situates it as an OpenChainGraph compliance node. It names the upstream (art-293-einvoice-format-validator) and downstream (art-295-einvoice-jurisdiction-mandate-router) artifacts, which genuinely positions it in the pipeline, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with close siblings like validate_einvoice_format or validate_einvoice_batch.

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 from art-293 / output feeds art-295' pipeline notes imply when this node belongs in a chain, and 'use synthetic or anonymised inputs only' is a real precondition. However there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives statement, and no named substitute tool for the 'I have raw e-invoice data, not a validated artifact' case.

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