swift_bic_checkValidate a SWIFT/BIC code by ISO 9362 structure (bank code, ISO country, location, optional branch).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bic | Yes | SWIFT/BIC code, 8 or 11 characters; spaces/dashes allowed. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool | No | ||
| scope | No | ||
| valid | Yes | ||
| reason | Yes | ||
| country | No | ||
| normalized | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that validation is structural (bank code, ISO country, location, optional branch), which signals a format check rather than a registry lookup.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One tightly written sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and includes the essential structural detail. No filler or repetition of schema information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a single-parameter validator with 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and readOnly/idempotent annotations. The description's statement of what is validated is enough to call the tool correctly without further context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema already documents length and permitted spaces/dashes, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the structural components of the BIC (bank, country, location, optional branch), which helps an agent formulate valid input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific action (validate), a specific resource (SWIFT/BIC code), and a precise method (ISO 9362 structure). The component breakdown distinguishes it from sibling code-format tools like iban_check or aba_routing_check.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly signals when to use the tool: whenever a SWIFT/BIC code must be validated against ISO 9362. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous given the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct identifier type or data source: every checksum validation is for a specific standard (IBAN, LEI, VAT, etc.), and the on-chain and rental tools are clearly separate domains. There is no ambiguity between tools; even similar-sounding checks like 'luhn_check' and 'ean13_check' are distinct algorithms with explicit descriptions.
Most validation tools follow a 'X_check' pattern (iban_check, swift_bic_check, ein_format_check), but others deviate: 'company_number_format' uses a noun_noun structure, 'block_info' is noun_noun, and 'batch_validate' and 'context_distill' use verbs. While the pattern is not uniform, the names are readable and the convention is understandable, just not fully consistent.
With 28 tools, this server exceeds the typical 3-15 well-scoped range and even the 16-25 heavy range. The server covers multiple unrelated domains (identifier validation, blockchain queries, rental fraud, text processing), which inflates the count. While each tool is individually justified, the overall surface feels overly broad for a single MCP server.
For each sub-domain, coverage is strong: identifier validation includes a wide range of international standards, on-chain queries cover balances, activity, and settlement history, and rental tools provide risk, verdict, and deposit guard. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no country-specific tax IDs beyond what's listed, no transaction history for arbitrary tokens), but the visible coverage is comprehensive for the stated purposes.