Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

hexadata-tools

by io.github.4robot
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Validate bank account identifier (CLABE, ABA, BIC)

validate_bank_account

Use this when you need to verify a bank account identifier before a transfer or supplier onboarding: a Mexican CLABE (18 digits, 3-7-1 check digit, bank resolved from the Banxico SPEI participant list), a US ABA routing number (9 digits, 3-7-1 checksum and ABA prefix ranges; no bank name by design) or a SWIFT/BIC code (ISO 9362 structure, country, location and branch; no bank name). Offline and deterministic: an invalid identifier is a valid (charged) answer with a reason code. For IBANs use validate_iban.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "validate_bank_account"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoIdentifier type: "clabe" (Mexico, 18 digits), "aba" (US routing number, 9 digits) or "bic" (SWIFT/BIC, ISO 9362, 8 or 11 characters).
itemsNoBatch mode: up to 500 items, each with the same fields as a single call. Omit when validating a single value through the top-level fields.
valueNoThe identifier, e.g. "002010077777777771" (CLABE), "021000021" (ABA), "DEUTDEFF500" (BIC). Spaces and dashes are ignored.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that the check is offline and deterministic, that a failed validation is still a billable ("charged") call returning a reason code, and that ABA and BIC deliberately return no bank name while CLABE resolves the bank from the Banxico SPEI list. Those are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent needs to avoid surprise costs or false expectations about the response.

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 trigger condition and the sibling exclusion are front-loaded, and every clause carries information (standard, length, checksum, bank resolution). It is dense with nested parentheticals, though, which makes the identifier-type details slower to parse than a bulleted breakdown would be.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining that results carry a reason code and that valid-format identifiers may still fail checksums. The remaining gap is batch mode: the schema supports up to 500 items, but the description never signals that bulk validation is a supported and preferable mode, which affects how an agent plans a multi-identifier workflow.

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 the type enum, the value format and the batch items array with its 500-item cap. The description's format asides (digits, ISO 9362 structure, spaces and dashes ignored) restate schema content and add no new parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (verify) and resource (bank account identifier) and enumerates the three supported identifier standards with their digit/checksum structure. It also explicitly names the excluded sibling case (IBANs → validate_iban), so an agent can discriminate it from validate_iban, lookup_lei and the other lookup tools without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

"Use this when you need to verify a bank account identifier before a transfer or supplier onboarding" gives an explicit trigger context, and "For IBANs use validate_iban" names the alternative and the exact condition that routes to it. Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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

All hexadata-tools toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources