pain001-mcp

Stage payment batch for simulation and approval

stage_payment_batch

Validate and risk-score ISO 20022 payment records in memory, producing an XML fingerprint and dual-control confirmation token for approval before any funds move.

Instructions

Stage a payment batch for simulation and dual-control approval.

Creates an in-memory staged payment order with zero fund movement and
a 1-hour expiration window. Computes:
1. Schema validation against the message type's JSON Schema.
2. Optional scheme compliance verification (SEPA, BACS, etc.).
3. Multi-currency control sums and fee estimation.
4. Multi-factor risk scoring (detecting duplicates, high transaction
   amounts, and generic remittance narratives).
5. In-memory XML compilation and SHA-256 fingerprinting.
6. Cryptographic dual-control confirmation token for subsequent authorization.

Args:
    message_type: A supported ISO 20022 pain message type.
    records: One or more flat payment records to stage.
    scheme: Optional payment scheme profile to validate against.

Returns:
    StagedBatchResult with staging metadata, risk assessment, fingerprint,
    and confirmation token, or {"error": ...}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`scheme`	No	Optional payment scheme profile to validate against, e.g. 'sepa-sct', 'sepa-instant', 'bacs', or 'cbpr-plus'.
`records`	Yes	Flat payment records to stage (zero fund movement). One or more flat payment records (dicts of field name → value). Key fields (see get_input_schema for the full contract): id, date (payment-initiation timestamp; 'YYYY-MM-DD' is accepted and rendered as midnight), initiator_name, payment_id, requested_execution_date ('YYYY-MM-DD'), debtor_name, debtor_account_IBAN, debtor_agent_BIC, creditor_name, creditor_account_IBAN, creditor_agent_BIC, payment_amount (alias: 'amount'; max two decimals), currency (alias: 'payment_currency'; ISO 4217, e.g. 'EUR'), remittance_information. batch_booking accepts JSON true/false. nb_of_txs and ctrl_sum are computed automatically from the records and may be omitted. payment_method defaults to 'TRF' and charge_bearer to 'SLEV'. IBAN and BIC values are strictly validated and never coerced.
`message_type`	Yes	A supported ISO 20022 pain message type. Must be exactly one of: 'pain.001.001.03', 'pain.001.001.04', 'pain.001.001.05', 'pain.001.001.06', 'pain.001.001.07', 'pain.001.001.08', 'pain.001.001.09', 'pain.001.001.10', 'pain.001.001.11', 'pain.001.001.12', 'pain.001.001.13', 'pain.008.001.02', 'pain.008.001.08', 'pain.001', 'pain.008' (see list_message_types). The bare family names 'pain.001' and 'pain.008' are accepted as aliases for 'pain.001.001.09' and 'pain.008.001.02'.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`status`	No
`stage_id`	No
`expires_at`	No
`risk_level`	No
`risk_score`	No
`risk_factors`	No
`estimated_fees`	No
`confirmation_token`	No
`sha256_fingerprint`	No
`total_transactions`	No
`control_sum_by_currency`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.0.72Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=false/idempotentHint=false; the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: zero fund movement, an in-memory staging model, a 1-hour expiration window, and a cryptographic confirmation token required before authorization. It does not state that repeat calls create new batches (consistent with idempotentHint=false), so it stops short of full disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the six-item computed-steps list is verbose and the Args/Returns sections duplicate content already covered by a 100%-covered schema and an existing output schema. Length is not justified by additive information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, yet the description still sketches the StagedBatchResult. For a complex staging operation it covers the important lifecycle (staging → risk/validation → token → authorization) and the ephemeral nature of the object. It omits any auth/permission requirements or note on repeat invocation.

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 schema already carries the parameter contract in detail (ISO 20022 enums, aliases, defaults, IBAN/BIC validation). The Args section in the description largely restates this, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Stage a payment batch' with a clear scope (in-memory, zero fund movement, 1-hour expiration). It is clear what the tool does, but it never names or contrasts itself with the obvious siblings (simulate_payment_batch, commit_payment_batch), leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'For simulation and dual-control approval' and 'token for subsequent authorization' imply where this sits in a workflow, but the description never states when to choose this over simulate_payment_batch or commit_payment_batch, nor any preconditions or when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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