Skip to main content
Glama

AINumbers Fintech Intelligence Suite

by co.ainumbers

UCP 600 / ISBP 745 Document Examination Assembler

examine_lc_document_presentation
Read-onlyIdempotent

UCP 600 / ISBP 745 Document Examination Assembler: OpenChainGraph compute node (compliance_control). 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-570-ucp600-document-examination-assembler.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
draftsNo
verdictNo
decisionNo
findingsNo
scope_noteNo
tolerancesNo
clause_noteNo
cross_documentNo
insurance_checkNo
rejected_inputsNo
presentation_dateNo
examination_windowNo
presentation_windowNo

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": {
+    "clause_note": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "cross_document": {
+      "properties": {
+        "invoice_vs_insurance_goods_description": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "invoice_vs_transport_goods_description": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "port_of_discharge": {
+          "properties": {
+            "document": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "lc": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "matches": {
+              "type": "boolean"
+            }
+          },
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        "port_of_loading": {
+          "properties": {
+            "document": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "lc": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "matches": {
+              "type": "boolean"
+            }
+          },
+          "type": "object"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "decision": {
+      "properties": {
+        "execution_state": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "gate_policy": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "reason": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "drafts": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "amount_minor": {
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "drawee": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "maturity_date": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "tenor_matches_lc": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "tenor_type": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "usance_basis": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "usance_days": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "examination_window": {
+      "properties": {
+        "examination_date": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "examination_deadline": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "examination_within_window": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "presentation_date": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "findings": {
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "insurance_check": {
+      "properties": {
+        "cif_cip_value_minor": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "effective_date": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "insurance_amount_minor": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "meets_floor": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "min_insurance_pct_of_cif": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "required_minor": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "presentation_date": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "presentation_window": {
+      "properties": {
+        "expiry_date": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "latest_shipment_date": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "presentation_period_days": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "shipment_date": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "shipment_on_time": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "shipment_plus_window_deadline": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "within_expiry": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "within_shipment_window": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "rejected_inputs": {
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "scope_note": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "tolerances": {
+      "properties": {
+        "amount": {
+          "properties": {
+            "invoice_amount_minor": {
+              "type": "integer"
+            },
+            "lc_amount_minor": {
+              "type": "integer"
+            },
+            "tolerance_pct": {
+              "type": "integer"
+            },
+            "variance_pct": {
+              "type": "integer"
+            },
+            "within_tolerance": {
+              "type": "boolean"
+            }
+          },
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        "quantity": {
+          "properties": {
+            "invoice_value": {
+              "type": "integer"
+            },
+            "lc_value": {
+              "type": "integer"
+            },
+            "tolerance_pct": {
+              "type": "integer"
+            },
+            "unit": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "variance_pct": {
+              "type": "integer"
+            },
+            "within_tolerance": {
+              "type": "boolean"
+            }
+          },
+          "type": "object"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "verdict": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: deterministic execution, server-side vs browser delegation, transient input processing with no retention, and the AP2 artifact with execution_hash for chain provenance. It also clarifies the FV-status receipt is a snapshot, not a subscription. These details are consistent with the readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive annotations.

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 not well front-loaded: the actual domain purpose is never clearly stated, and the text is dominated by infrastructure, provenance, and status-receipt details. The compute and privacy details are valuable, but the description reads more like a node metadata dump than a concise tool explanation.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite the rich compute/provenance information, the description is incomplete for tool selection: it never explains what 'document examination' entails, what inputs should represent, or what decision/result the AP2 artifact contains. For a tool among thousands of siblings, this leaves too much to inference.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds some useful nuance about the compute parameter's default behavior and browser delegation, but it does not add meaning to parent_hashes, parent_tool_ids, or policy_parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description identifies the tool as a 'UCP 600 / ISBP 745 Document Examination Assembler' and an 'OpenChainGraph compute node,' but it never actually states what the tool does with a document presentation or what it assembles. The only concrete action mentioned is 'Exports an AP2 artifact,' which describes an infrastructure outcome, not the domain function.

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?

The description gives some operational guidance, such as using synthetic or anonymised inputs and choosing compute modes, but it does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when this should be selected over related LC/trade-document tools, nor any exclusion criteria.

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