Skip to main content
Glama

AINumbers Fintech Intelligence Suite

by co.ainumbers

SB 53 Frontier Scope Checker

check_sb53_frontier_scope
Read-onlyIdempotent

SB 53 Frontier Scope Checker: 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-316-sb53-frontier-scope-checker.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
compute_flopsNo
flop_thresholdNo
obligation_setNo
statute_citationNo
is_frontier_modelNo
is_large_frontier_developerNo
large_developer_revenue_threshold_usdNo

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": {
+    "compute_flops": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "flop_threshold": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "is_frontier_model": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "is_large_frontier_developer": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "large_developer_revenue_threshold_usd": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "obligation_set": {
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "statute_citation": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: inputs are processed transiently and not stored, logged, or retained, execution is deterministic, an AP2 artifact with execution_hash is exported, and the FV-status is a snapshot that verifies offline. These details materially affect how an agent should treat the call and its outputs.

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 description is a dense, unbroken paragraph that repeats 'OpenChainGraph compute node' and duplicates compute-mode behavior already present in the input schema. Core guidance like transient processing and synthetic-only use is buried mid-paragraph after implementation details.

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?

For a complex tool with output schema and annotations, it covers execution modes, data handling, provenance, and offline verification well. But the core semantic of the SB 53 frontier scope decision and the structure/fields of policy_parameters are missing, so an agent cannot fully determine what to pass or how to interpret the result.

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 descriptions already cover all four parameters at 100%, so the baseline applies. The prose adds only a little context beyond the schema, such as Cloudflare Workers server-side execution and transient input handling; the critical policy_parameters structure is still deferred to 'the tool's manifest'.

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 identifies the tool as a deterministic OpenChainGraph compute node for an SB 53 frontier scope check and ties it to a compliance mandate, but it never states what the check evaluates or what the outcome means. The actual verb-resource semantics are left to the name and the referenced manifest, making the purpose clear only at a high level.

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?

It provides operational context: compute auto/server/browser routing, gpu:true delegation, and the instruction to use synthetic or anonymised inputs only. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over sibling check_* or compliance tools, nor what conditions would make it the wrong tool.

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