Skip to main content
Glama

Bankstatemently

Match Transfers Between Accounts

list_transfers
Read-only

Match transfers between your own accounts. A transfer is TWO transactions — a debit leaving one of your accounts and a credit arriving in another — matched as two sides of the same movement (amount and date aligned); account-level successions (an account closing into a successor) are matched too. A payment to an outside party is not a transfer here: only movements with both sides visible in your statements are matched. THE way to answer any "was money moved between my accounts" / "did I transfer X" question — never try to answer a money-moved-between-accounts question with list_transactions + arithmetic; always call this tool instead. Scope defaults to all your completed statements; pass "scope" to narrow to specific accounts/products and/or a date range. Every response reports the match window (in days) it used, even when no transfers are found — a lack of matches is never silent about how hard it looked. To find large movements with NO matching counterpart in your other accounts — e.g. "trace transfers over $10,000; which ones leave without a known destination?" — pass "amountMin": reconciled pairs and successions are filtered to that floor, and the response gains an "unmatched" bucket of large movements (debits leaving, or unexplained credits arriving) with no matching pair, candidate, or succession. Omit amountMin for the ordinary reconciled-pairs answer.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scopeNo
amountMinNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scopeYes
ambiguousYes
transfersYes
unmatchedNo
ambiguousCountYes
matchWindowDaysYes
accountSuccessionsYes

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations. It details the matching algorithm (two transactions, account-level successions), the restriction that both sides must be visible, and the behavior that the match window is always reported even when no matches are found—ensuring no silent failures. This is rich behavioral context.

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 description is long but well-structured: definition, usage guidance, scope, and amountMin behavior. Every sentence adds functional value. It is slightly verbose but not redundant, so a 4 is appropriate rather than a 5.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested scope object, dual-mode behavior with amountMin, matching semantics), the description covers all necessary information: how transfers are defined, how to filter, what responses include, and the special unmatched case. It also notes the presence of an output schema implicitly (mentions response components), making it complete for confident invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the purpose of 'scope' (narrow to accounts/products and date range) and 'amountMin' (filters reconciled pairs and adds an unmatched bucket). Both parameters are given clear semantic meaning beyond their raw type definitions.

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?

The description clearly states the tool matches transfers between own accounts, distinguishing it from list_transactions by explicitly saying not to use that tool with arithmetic. It defines exactly what constitutes a transfer (two sides visible) and excludes payments to outside parties, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'THE way to answer any "was money moved between my accounts" question' and explicitly says to never use list_transactions + arithmetic instead. Also explains how to narrow scope and when to pass amountMin for unmatched movements, covering both default and edge-case usage.

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.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Core tools are cleanly separated by resource: statements, transactions, transfers, credits, and benchmark all have dedicated entry points. The five analytics tools (aggregate, group_by, compare, time_series, top_n) share metric/filter language, but their distinct output shapes and careful descriptions prevent major confusion, with only group_by vs. time_series/top_n occasionally overlapping.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clear snake_case verb_noun pattern such as convert_statement, list_transactions, rate_statement, and dismiss_statement. The analytics tools (aggregate, compare, group_by, time_series, top_n) break that pattern, but they are still recognizable, consistently styled, and form a meaningful cluster.

Tool Count4/5

At 16 tools, this is slightly above the typical 3-15 well-scoped range, but the server covers a broad workflow: upload, conversion, retrieval, categorization, analytics, transfer matching, rating, credits, and benchmarking. Each tool maps to a distinct capability, so the count feels justified rather than bloated.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the full statement lifecycle from upload and conversion through retrieval, categorization, analysis, rating, and dismissal, plus useful side capabilities like credits and benchmark evaluation. Minor gaps exist—no permanent deletion and no way to manually edit category mappings—but dismiss_statement and categorize_statement provide adequate workarounds.