IBANforge

Compliance Check

check_compliance

Read-onlyIdempotent

Run a pre-flight compliance check on an IBAN to evaluate sanctions risk, SEPA Instant reachability, and receive a numeric risk score before sending a payment.

Instructions

Run a full pre-flight compliance check on an IBAN before sending a SEPA / cross-border payment. USE WHEN: the user is about to send a payment / payout / refund and wants to triage risk first, asks "is this IBAN safe to pay?", asks for sanctions screening, asks whether the recipient bank is reachable for SEPA Instant, or needs a numeric risk score for an internal payment-approval workflow. NOT A REGULATED AML/CFT PRODUCT — informational triage only. For regulated screening use Refinitiv, Acuris, or ComplyAdvantage. SCOPE: sanctions screening is at the BANK (BIC8) level only — it does NOT screen the beneficiary/account-holder name. CHECKS: IBAN validity + bank sanctions (OFAC) + FATF grey/black list + SEPA Instant reachability + VoP (EU 2024/886) participant flag. RETURNS: the validate_iban fields PLUS a nested compliance { sanctions, reachability, vop, risk_score (0-100), risk_level, flags[] }. COST: 0.02 USDC.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`iban`	Yes	IBAN to run the compliance check against.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`bic`	No
`iban`	Yes
`meta`	No	Scope + freshness disclosure. Read this before trusting the result.
`sepa`	No
`valid`	Yes
`issuer`	No
`country`	No
`cost_usdc`	No
`compliance`	Yes	The compliance bundle. Read the score at compliance.risk_score / compliance.risk_level.
`risk_indicators`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed19 schema fields changedv1.4.4Sep 2, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / bic

Added value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "bank_name": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "city": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "code": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / compliance

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The compliance bundle. Read the score at compliance.risk_score / compliance.risk_level.",
+  "properties": {
+    "flags": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "reachability": {
+      "properties": {
+        "sct": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "sdd": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "sepa_instant": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "risk_level": {
+      "description": "unassessable = the IBAN failed validation, no screening was possible. Never treat it as low.",
+      "enum": [
+        "low",
+        "medium",
+        "elevated",
+        "high",
+        "critical",
+        "unassessable"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "risk_score": {
+      "description": "0 = safest, 100 = highest.",
+      "maximum": 100,
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "sanctions": {
+      "properties": {
+        "bank_sanctioned": {
+          "description": "Bank-BIC level only — NOT the beneficiary.",
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "country_sanctioned": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "fatf_status": {
+          "enum": [
+            "member",
+            "grey_list",
+            "black_list",
+            "non_member"
+          ],
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "matched_lists": {
+          "description": "e.g. [\"OFAC\",\"EU\"].",
+          "items": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "vop": {
+      "properties": {
+        "participant": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "status": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / cost_usdc
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "number"
+}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / country

Added value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "code": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

removedOutput schema / properties / fatf

Removed value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "list": {
-      "description": "FATF mutual evaluation status.",
-      "enum": [
-        "none",
-        "grey",
-        "black"
-      ],
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / flags

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Boolean flags rolled up into risk_score.",
-  "properties": {
-    "emi": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "fatf_high_risk": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "sanctions_match": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "sepa_unreachable": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "viban": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}

addedOutput schema / properties / issuer

Added value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "name": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / meta

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Scope + freshness disclosure. Read this before trusting the result.",
+  "properties": {
+    "disclaimer": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "fatf_as_of": {
+      "description": "YYYY-MM of the FATF plenary reflected.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "sanctions_as_of": {
+      "description": "ISO timestamp of the last data refresh.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "scope": {
+      "description": "Sanctions are screened at the bank BIC, NOT the beneficiary name.",
+      "enum": [
+        "bank_bic_only"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "sources": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

removedOutput schema / properties / recommended_action

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Suggested workflow gate.",
-  "enum": [
-    "allow",
-    "review",
-    "block"
-  ],
-  "type": "string"
-}

addedOutput schema / properties / risk_indicators
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "object"
+}
```

removedOutput schema / properties / risk_score

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "0 = safest, 100 = block. Combines sanctions, country risk, FATF flag, vIBAN/EMI flags.",
-  "maximum": 100,
-  "minimum": 0,
-  "type": "number"
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / sanctions

Removed value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "bic_sanctioned": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "country_sanctioned": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "lists": {
-      "description": "List of matched sanctions sources (e.g. [\"OFAC\", \"EU\"]).",
-      "items": {
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "type": "array"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / sepa / properties / instant
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / sepa / properties / member
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
removedOutput schema / properties / sepa / properties / reachable
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / sepa / properties / schemes

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / sepa / properties / vop_required
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```

removedOutput schema / properties / vop

Removed value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "participant": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "iban",
-  "valid",
-  "risk_score",
-  "recommended_action"
-]New value: +[
+  "iban",
+  "valid",
+  "compliance"
+]

Addedv1.2.2Apr 30, 2026
Removedv1.2.1Apr 30, 2026
Addedv1.2.0Apr 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar for added behavioral context is satisfied amply. The description discloses the material limitation that sanctions screening is at the BANK/BIC8 level and does not screen beneficiary names, and it states the cost (0.02 USDC) and the exact set of checks performed. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is long but every section earns its place: USE WHEN, regulatory disclaimer, SCOPE limitation, CHECKS, RETURNS, and COST. It is front-loaded with the action and use case, and the structured format makes the information easy to parse without wasted words.

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 compliance tool that has one parameter, an output schema, and meaningful limitations, the description is complete. It covers when to use it, when not to use it, what it checks, what it returns, its bank-level scope limitation, its cost, and alternatives. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to invoke it is missing.

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%, so the single 'iban' parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds useful context about what the check covers and returns, but it does not add parameter-level format, normalization, or validation semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run a full pre-flight compliance check on an IBAN before sending a SEPA / cross-border payment.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like validate_iban by enumerating the additional compliance checks (sanctions, reachability, VoP, risk score) and noting that it returns validate_iban fields plus a compliance object.

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 USE WHEN section gives explicit triggering scenarios such as payment risk triage, sanctions screening requests, SEPA Instant reachability questions, and numeric risk score needs. It also explicitly warns that this is NOT a regulated AML/CFT product and names alternatives (Refinitiv, Acuris, ComplyAdvantage), giving the agent clear routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server