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 clear pass/fail result.

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 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 financial identifier type to validate (case-insensitive). Must be exactly one of: 'bic', 'iban', 'lei'.
valueYesThe identifier value to check, matching the chosen kind (e.g. an IBAN, an 8- or 11-character BIC, or a 20-character LEI). Whitespace/case handling follows the underlying validator.
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds return format (JSON with kind, value, valid) and emphasizes clear pass/fail outcome. No contradictions.

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 concise, well-structured with clear sections, and every sentence adds value. No superfluous text.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, return format, and argument details. Complete and sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and includes detailed descriptions (e.g., case-insensitivity for kind, examples for value). The description's Args section adds minimal new information 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), using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from the sibling validate_records by specifying single vs batch.

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 says when to use (one-off check) and when not to (batch), and provides the alternative validate_records. This meets the criteria perfectly.

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/camt053-mcp'

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