Skip to main content
Glama

Validate IBAN, BIC or LEI

validate_identifier
Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate a single financial identifier (IBAN, BIC, or LEI) and receive a pass/fail result. Use for one-off checks.

Instructions

Validate a single financial identifier (IBAN, BIC, or LEI).

Use this for a one-off identifier check with a clear pass/fail. To
validate identifiers embedded across a whole batch of account records,
prefer ``validate_records`` rather than calling this per field.

Returns ``{"kind": str, "value": str, "valid": bool}``.

Args:
    kind: One of ``"iban"``, ``"bic"``, or ``"lei"`` (case-insensitive).
    value: The identifier value to check.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYesThe identifier scheme to validate against: one of 'iban', 'bic', or 'lei' (case-insensitive).
valueYesThe identifier value to check, e.g. an IBAN, BIC/SWIFT code, or LEI; validated according to the given kind.
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds the exact return format (kind, value, valid). No contradictions. Fully transparent.

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?

Two short paragraphs and a bullet list. Every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with purpose and usage guidance. No 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?

Given simple 2-param tool with no output schema but clear return, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return value. Sibling guidance completes context.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds case-insensitive note for kind and examples for value, providing slight additional meaning beyond schema.

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 validates a single financial identifier (IBAN, BIC, or LEI). It distinguishes from sibling validate_records by specifying one-off vs batch usage.

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?

Explicitly advises when to use this tool (one-off check) and when to prefer sibling validate_records (batch of account records). Provides actionable guidance.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/sebastienrousseau/acmt001-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server