Skip to main content
Glama

Validate addresses in payment rows

validate_addresses
Read-onlyIdempotent

Batch-validate party addresses across payment rows to identify rejections before generating the pacs.008 message.

Instructions

Batch-validate every party address across a list of payment rows.

Use this before ``generate_message`` to catch addresses that will be
rejected at the rail. The default ``hybrid_or_structured`` policy enforces
the November 14, 2026 cliff. Each finding is reported per offending
``(row, party)`` pair.

Returns ``{"policy": str, "is_valid": bool, "total": int, "errors":
[{"row": int, "party": str, "severity": str, "message": str,
"classification": str}, ...]}`` or an ``{"error": ...}`` payload.

Args:
    addresses: One or more payment-row dicts (see the field description).
    policy: The validation policy to enforce (see the enum values).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
policyNoPostal-address validation policy. 'unstructured_ok' permits any form (pre-cliff / generic); 'hybrid_or_structured' rejects fully unstructured addresses (the SWIFT CBPR+ UG2026 default in force from 14 November 2026); 'structured_only' requires full structured form. Must be one of: 'unstructured_ok', 'hybrid_or_structured', 'structured_only'.hybrid_or_structured
addressesYesPayment-row dicts. The pipeline scans each row for columns of the form '{party}_address_{field}' (party in debtor, creditor, debtor_agent, creditor_agent, ultimate_debtor, ultimate_creditor; field a snake_case PostalAddress field such as twn_nm/ctry/strt_nm or adr_line_0..adr_line_6) and validates each party's address.
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds context about the return format (structured error list per (row, party)) and the policy enforcement date, enhancing transparency beyond 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?

The description is concise and well-structured, with a summary, usage note, and return format. The Args section is slightly redundant but does not detract significantly from clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (batch validation, multiple parties, policy implications), the description covers purpose, usage, and output format. It lacks edge cases but is sufficiently complete for the given 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds meaningful detail: it explains the address parameter expects columns like '{party}_address_{field}' and lists valid parties, and it clarifies the policy enum values in context of the validation cliff.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Batch-validate every party address across a list of payment rows.' It distinguishes from the singular 'validate_address' sibling by emphasizing batch processing, though it does not explicitly name the sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance: 'Use this before generate_message to catch addresses that will be rejected at the rail.' It also explains the default policy and the November 14, 2026 cliff, but does not specify when not to use it or compare with other validation tools.

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/pacs008-mcp'

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