Skip to main content
Glama
bankstatemently

bankstatemently

Official
by bankstatemently
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Remote

Match Transfers Between Accounts

list_transfers
Read-only

Match internal transfers by pairing outgoing debits with incoming credits across your own accounts, including successions and ambiguous ties. Use it to answer whether 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. Ties come back as "ambiguous" until decided; call adjudicate_transfers to decide them. 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: "account" | "product", id }, the id of an account descriptor or product returned by a tool); "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. Changed3 schema fields changedv2.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / scope / description
      Previous value: -"Optional 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)."New value: +"Optional structural scope (WHO × WHEN). Omit to search across all your completed statements. \"accounts\" is a list of account/product chips ({ kind: \"account\" | \"product\", id }, the id of an account descriptor or product returned by a tool); \"dateRange\" bounds by transaction date (YYYY-MM-DD)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / scope / properties / accounts / description
      Previous value: -"Account/product chips (kind + identityKey) to scope to. Empty = all accounts."New value: +"Account/product id chips (kind + id) to scope to. Empty = all accounts."
    • changedInput schema / properties / scope / properties / accounts / items / oneOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "properties": {
-      "anchorContentHash": {
-        "description": "Document-anchored lookup when present (results page); omit for a user-scoped lookup (workspace surfaces).",
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "identityKey": {
-        "description": "Canonical account identity key (accountIdentityKey), never a raw DB UUID.",
-        "minLength": 1,
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "kind": {
-        "const": "account",
-        "description": "This chip addresses a single account.",
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "label": {
-        "description": "Display label for this chip.",
-        "type": "string"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "kind",
-      "identityKey"
-    ],
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "properties": {
-      "identityKey": {
-        "description": "Product slug.",
-        "minLength": 1,
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "kind": {
-        "const": "product",
-        "description": "This chip addresses a product and expands to its child accounts.",
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "label": {
-        "description": "Display label for this chip.",
-        "type": "string"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "kind",
-      "identityKey"
-    ],
-    "type": "object"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "id": {
+        "description": "The account id: the `id` of an account descriptor returned by a tool, or of a statement tool `accounts[]` entry.",
+        "format": "uuid",
+        "pattern": "^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "kind": {
+        "const": "account",
+        "description": "This chip addresses a single account.",
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "kind",
+      "id"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "id": {
+        "description": "The product id: the `id` of a product returned by a statement tool (`get_statement` / `convert_statement`, `products[].id`).",
+        "format": "uuid",
+        "pattern": "^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "kind": {
+        "const": "product",
+        "description": "This chip addresses a product and expands to its child accounts.",
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "kind",
+      "id"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  }
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare this a safe read, and the description layers on substantial non-obvious behavior: ties are returned as 'ambiguous' until adjudicated, scope defaults to all completed statements, every response reports its match window even when empty, and amountMin adds an 'unmatched' bucket. These are behavioral traits an agent could not infer from the schema or annotations.

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?

It is long and dense with parentheticals and quoted examples, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose and nearly every sentence carries distinct information (definition, exclusions, routing, defaults, edge behavior). Slightly overstuffed, but not padded with filler.

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?

For a nested, zero-required-param tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: scope semantics, the ambiguity/adjudication workflow, the match-window reporting guarantee, and the amountMin-driven 'unmatched' bucket. Return-value behavior is explained in prose, compensating for the absent output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains the default scope ('all your completed statements'), what narrowing via scope does, and — most valuably — exactly how amountMin changes results (flooring reconciled pairs/successions and introducing an 'unmatched' bucket), which the schema's one-line description only gestures at.

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 gives a precise verb+resource ('Match transfers between your own accounts') and then defines what counts as a transfer (two sides: a debit leaving one account and a credit arriving in another, amount and date aligned), including account successions. It explicitly carves out what is NOT a transfer ('a payment to an outside party is not a transfer here'), making it trivially distinguishable from list_transactions.

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?

It states an explicit rule: 'THE way to answer any "was money moved between my accounts" question — never try to answer ... with list_transactions + arithmetic; always call this tool instead.' It also routes the follow-up decision to a named sibling ('call adjudicate_transfers to decide' ambiguous ties) and gives conditional guidance for amountMin versus omitting it.

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