finance

Statements: Apply parsed statement fields to an account

apply_statement

    Apply user-confirmed statement fields to one of the user's accounts.
    Premium-only. Only the fields passed are written; each is re-validated
    server-side (same bounds as the web + REST paths) under a row lock.

    Args:
        account_id: The account to update (the caller's own, active).
        balance: New balance.
        interest_rate: APR percent, 0-100, up to 3 decimals.
        credit_limit: Credit limit (>= 0).
        minimum_payment: Minimum payment (>= 0).
        institution: Institution name (max 200 chars).
        original_balance: Original loan/balance amount (>= 0).
        term_months: Loan term in months (1-600).
        loan_start_date: Loan start date, YYYY-MM-DD.
        loan_end_date: Loan maturity/payoff date, YYYY-MM-DD.

    Returns:
        ``{"success": True, "account_id": ..., "updated_fields": [...],
        "new_balance": ...}`` on success, or ``{"error": "..."}`` (not
        Premium, account not found, bad value, or nothing to apply).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "account_id": "<account_id>"
    },
    "name": "apply_statement"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`balance`	No
`account_id`	Yes
`institution`	No
`term_months`	No
`credit_limit`	No
`interest_rate`	No
`loan_end_date`	No
`loan_start_date`	No
`minimum_payment`	No
`original_balance`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, but the description adds real depth: only passed fields are written (partial update), values are re-validated server-side under a row lock (concurrency/validation), and it enumerates error modes (not Premium, account not found, bad value, nothing to apply). It stops short of discussing reversibility or auditing, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Well-organized with front-loaded purpose followed by an Args block and return shape; the Args lines are justified because the schema carries no descriptions. Slightly list-like but no wasted sentences.

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 10-parameter mutation with no output schema, it covers the essentials: gating (Premium), partial-update semantics, validation, all parameter constraints, and both success and error return shapes. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden and delivers: it documents all ten fields with bounds and formats (interest_rate 0-100 up to 3 decimals, credit_limit >= 0, institution max 200 chars, term_months 1-600, dates as YYYY-MM-DD), which is meaningfully more than the bare type/default schema.

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?

Specific verb ('apply') + resource ('user-confirmed statement fields') + scope ('to one of the user's accounts'). The qualifier 'user-confirmed' distinguishes it from the sibling parse_statement, which only parses, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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 phrase 'user-confirmed statement fields' implies this runs after parse_statement and after user confirmation, and 'Premium-only' is a clear gating condition. However, it never names the sibling tool to call first nor states when-not to use it (e.g., versus update_account or override_account_balance), leaving the workflow inference to the agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All finance tools Inspect

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

Need Help?