Skip to main content
Glama
bankstatemently

bankstatemently

Official
by bankstatemently
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Remote

Match Transfers Between Accounts

list_transfers
Read-only

Match debit and credit transactions across your own accounts to reveal transfers, including account successions, and answer questions about money moved between accounts.

Instructions

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
scopeNoOptional structural scope (WHO × WHEN). Omit to search across all your completed statements. "accounts" is a list of account/product chips (kind + identityKey); "dateRange" bounds by transaction date (YYYY-MM-DD).
amountMinNoInclusive minimum absolute amount. When present, transfers/accountSuccessions are floored to this amount and the response gains an "unmatched" bucket of large movements with no matching counterpart. Omit for the ordinary reconciled-pairs answer.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description details the tool's behavior: it returns matched pairs, optionally generates an 'unmatched' bucket when amountMin is set, and reports the match window used. This goes well beyond annotation-only disclosure.

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 well-structured but somewhat verbose. It repeats the core definition of a transfer several times and could be tightened without losing meaning. However, the information is logically organized and each sentence serves a purpose, so it remains easy to follow.

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 complexity of the matching logic and the absence of an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns: matched pairs, the optional unmatched bucket, and the match window. It also addresses edge cases (payments to outside parties) and provides context relative to sibling tools.

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?

Both parameters (scope and amountMin) are thoroughly explained in the description. The schema provides detailed descriptions for nested fields (accounts, dateRange), and the description complements with usage semantics such as 'Scope defaults to all your completed statements' and 'Omit amountMin for the ordinary reconciled-pairs answer.' Coverage is complete.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: "Match transfers between your own accounts." It clearly distinguishes transfers from payments to outside parties and contrasts with list_transactions, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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?

The description provides direct usage guidance: "THE way to answer any 'was money moved between my accounts' / 'did I transfer X' question" and explicitly warns against using list_transactions. It also explains when to use amountMin versus omit it, giving clear conditions for each usage mode.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools