Skip to main content
Glama

AgentTools Hub

IBAN Validator

finance_iban_validator

Validate an International Bank Account Number: country code, country-specific length and the ISO 7064 MOD 97-10 check digits — with the pretty-printed grouping returned when valid. — x402 price $0.001/call (USDC, eip155:8453).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ibanYesSpaces are ignored

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the validation steps, that a pretty-printed grouping is returned when valid, and the per-call x402 price/payment chain. However, it never states what happens on invalid input (error vs. boolean), so a mutation-free-read tool's failure behavior remains opaque.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One dense clause describing what is checked followed by return-value and pricing notes; the core purpose is front-loaded and no sentence is wasted. The em-dash price suffix is slightly awkward but compact.

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?

For a one-parameter validator with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the validation semantics, the valid-case return value, and the payment requirement. It is only short of the invalid-case response shape, which for a boolean-style validator is a minor omission.

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% and the single 'iban' parameter is already documented, including that spaces are ignored. The description adds no syntax, format, or normalization detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 (Validate) plus the exact resource (International Bank Account Number) and enumerates the checks performed: country code, country-specific length, and ISO 7064 MOD 97-10 check digits. This is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the calculator/converter siblings.

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?

Usage is implied — you validate an IBAN before relying on it — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named (the nearest analog, dev_email_validator, is not referenced, though it is a different domain so that is forgivable). Adequate but with a clear gap.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources