Skip to main content
Glama

AINumbers Fintech Intelligence Suite

by co.ainumbers
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Timestamp Attestation Verifier

verify_timestamp_attestation
Read-onlyIdempotent

Timestamp Attestation 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-121-document-integrity-anchor. Open at: https://ainumbers.co/chaingraph/art-122-timestamp-attestation-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_timestamp_attestation").

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": {
-    "algo_match": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "hash_match": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "ts_consistent": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "verified": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "algo_match": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "hash_match": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "ts_consistent": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "verified": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description adds substantive context the annotations cannot: server-vs-browser execution semantics for gpu:false/gpu:true nodes, transient non-retention of inputs, and the AP2 execution_hash provenance artifact it emits. It also notes the FV-status receipt verifies offline. It stops short of describing the verification result itself, but this is well beyond the annotation surface.

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?

It opens with categorization ('compute node', 'deterministic compute node') rather than the purpose, and packs compute binding, data-handling, provenance, an artwork URL, and an FV-status URL into one dense block. The signal is present but not front-loaded and is padded with repeated framing and links.

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 carries the return-value burden, and it defers to 'call describe_tool(...)' instead of explaining what a verification result contains. It covers compute behavior, data handling, and provenance well, but a verification tool's success/failure output shape is a notable gap for a no-output-schema tool.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters; the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the compute-mode semantics but adds little for parent_hashes, parent_tool_ids, or policy_parameters beyond what the schema states. Adequate but not additive.

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 description never plainly states the core operation ('verifies a timestamp attestation'); it categorizes itself as an 'OpenChainGraph compute node (compliance_mandate)' and describes mechanics (compute modes, artifact export). The name/title carry the actual purpose, and there is no differentiation from siblings like verify_anchored_extract or verify_execution_hash. Input/output hints (consumes art-121, exports AP2 artifact) give partial clarity but the verb+resource is left implicit.

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?

It provides one real usage constraint ('Use synthetic or anonymised inputs only'), but no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives among the many verify_* siblings. The compute-mode text explains mechanics, not selection. An agent must infer when this tool is the right choice.

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