Skip to main content
Glama

AINumbers Fintech Intelligence Suite

by co.ainumbers

AI-Tool-Usage Workpaper Record

build_ai_workpaper_record
Read-onlyIdempotent

AI-Tool-Usage Workpaper Record: 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. Open at: https://ainumbers.co/chaingraph/art-380-build-ai-workpaper-record.html FV-status (published/proven/still-trusted for this spec): /fv-status/e5ebd9cab6d424d5a202b2144bf9dacc14abf4ed24f3f0ac3adbecdd87c14872.json — a snapshot, not a subscription; this receipt verifies offline regardless of whether that file is ever fetched.

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.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
checksNo
sign_offNo
disclaimerNo
engagementNo
limitationsNo
tool_identityNo
zero_pii_noticeNo
evidence_bindingNo
previous_workpaper_hashNo
documentation_standard_refNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "checks": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "check": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "detail": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "pass": {
+            "type": "boolean"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "disclaimer": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "documentation_standard_ref": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "engagement": {
+      "properties": {
+        "engagement_id": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "reporting_period": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "evidence_binding": {
+      "properties": {
+        "execution_hash": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "generated_at": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "limitations": {
+      "properties": {
+        "declared_conventions": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "determinism_class": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "previous_workpaper_hash": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "sign_off": {
+      "properties": {
+        "reviewer_role": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "reviewer_statement": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "tool_identity": {
+      "properties": {
+        "kernel_digest": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "tool_id": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "tool_version": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "zero_pii_notice": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive annotations, the description discloses that inputs are transient and not stored, logged, or retained, that the node is deterministic, and that it exports an AP2 artifact with execution_hash. It also clarifies that the FV-status receipt is a snapshot rather than a live subscription, giving the agent a detailed model of side effects and trust boundaries.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the tool's identity and deterministic nature, then efficiently covers compute binding, privacy guarantees, input constraints, artifact output, and verification links. It loses a point for a redundant second 'OpenChainGraph compute node' statement and a long URL/FV-status tail, but the overall density is strong.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a tool with an output schema and no required parameters, this description is unusually complete: it explains execution location, privacy behavior, compute-mode selection, artifact output, and verification method. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly without needing to consult additional documentation.

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%, and the schema already documents compute modes, parent_hashes, parent_tool_ids, and policy_parameters in detail. The description largely reiterates the compute-mode semantics rather than adding substantial new parameter-level meaning, so it remains at the high-coverage baseline.

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?

The description clearly states that this tool builds an AI-Tool-Usage Workpaper Record as a deterministic OpenChainGraph compute node and exports an AP2 artifact with execution_hash for chain provenance. This is more specific than the bare tool name and gives an agent a concrete sense of the resource being produced, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many sibling build_* tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides actionable usage context: it warns to use synthetic or anonymised inputs only, explains when compute is handled server-side vs. browser-side, and notes that gpu:true nodes always delegate to the browser. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full guidance.

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
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

With 698 tools covering overlapping regulatory and compliance domains, many tools have near-identical names and purposes (e.g., check_genius_reserve_disclosure vs check_genius_reserve_disclosure_conformance, multiple DORA incident classifiers, several AP2 mandate validators). The highly templated descriptions further reduce distinctiveness, making reliable tool selection by an agent effectively impossible.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority of tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (assess_*, build_*, compute_*, validate_*, verify_*). Minor deviations exist (camt053_parse, workbook_evaluate, ha_gate_status, sdjwt_issue, etc.), but they are a small fraction of the total and follow recognizable domain-prefix conventions.

Tool Count1/5

698 tools is an extreme oversizing for any server, far beyond the 50+ threshold for a low score. Even with dedicated search/discovery tools, this unwieldy surface guarantees cognitive overload, high misselection risk, and severe practical usability problems.

Completeness4/5

The suite covers an extraordinarily broad range of fintech/regulatory domains — capital adequacy, AML, payments, crypto, AI governance, trade finance, and many verification/recompute lifecycles. Obvious gaps are difficult to identify, though the set is not a coherent single lifecycle and some niche areas are inevitably absent.

Resources