Skip to main content
Glama

AINumbers Fintech Intelligence Suite

by co.ainumbers

Parametric Trigger Payout Calculator

compute_parametric_trigger_payout
Read-onlyIdempotent

Parametric Trigger Payout Calculator: 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-252-validate-cat-bond-trigger-terms. Open at: https://ainumbers.co/chaingraph/art-251-compute-parametric-trigger-payout.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
pii_noteNo
index_valueNo
trigger_hitNo
table_sourceNo
payout_amountNo
table_versionNo
anchor_surfaceNo
threshold_usedNo
coverage_amountNo
trigger_receiptNo
not_legal_adviceNo
parametric_limitNo
regulatory_basisNo
trigger_fractionNo
trigger_type_usedNo
tier_matched_indexNo

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": {
+    "anchor_surface": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "coverage_amount": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "index_value": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "not_legal_advice": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "parametric_limit": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "payout_amount": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "pii_note": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "regulatory_basis": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "table_source": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "table_version": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "threshold_used": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "tier_matched_index": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "trigger_fraction": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "trigger_hit": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "trigger_receipt": {
+      "properties": {
+        "coverage_amount": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "index_value": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "max_index_used": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "parametric_limit": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "payout_amount": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "threshold_used": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "tier_matched_index": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "trigger_fraction": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "trigger_hit": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "trigger_type": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "trigger_type_used": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: deterministic execution, server-side Cloudflare Workers execution, browser delegation for gpu:true nodes, transient input processing with no storage/logging/retention, AP2 artifact export with execution_hash, and a verifiable FV-status receipt. This goes well beyond what the annotations alone convey.

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 description is logically front-loaded with purpose, then compute behavior, privacy, output, and provenance. It is however repetitive ('OpenChainGraph compute node' appears twice) and the final FV-status sentence is long and arguably peripheral to invocation. It earns its place mostly, but is not tightly minimal.

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?

Given the output schema exists, return-value documentation is covered elsewhere. The description covers compute modes, determinism, privacy constraints, artifact output, downstream consumers, and provenance verification. The main gap is the lack of concrete policy_parameters field names or payout logic, but the schema defers those to the manifest, so the description is still reasonably complete for a chain compute node.

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 applies. The description adds useful color about compute mode semantics and browser delegation, but does not explain parent_hashes/parent_tool_ids beyond the schema, and policy_parameters field names are deferred to the manifest. It adds some value but does not materially reduce parameter ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the tool as a Parametric Trigger Payout Calculator and identifies it as a deterministic OpenChainGraph compute node. It further clarifies the output artifact and downstream consumer (art-252-validate-cat-bond-trigger-terms), which distinguishes it from sibling validation and other compute tools. This is a specific verb+resource pairing, not a tautology.

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 description gives concrete behavior around compute modes (auto/server/browser, gpu:true delegation) and warns to use synthetic or anonymised inputs only. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it name sibling tools or exclusion conditions. Usage context is implied through the output feed and name, but not made explicit.

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