Skip to main content
Glama

reconcile

Read-onlyIdempotent

Match expected payments against observed bank-statement entries to produce an explainable reconciliation report covering exact matches, adjustments, splits, batches, and unmatched residuals.

Instructions

Reconcile expected payments against observed bank-statement entries.

Purpose: Matches expected payment instructions (e.g. from pain.001) against observed bank transactions (e.g. from camt.053) and produces an explainable reconciliation report covering exact matches, short/over adjustments, split settlements (one-to-many), batch credits (many-to-one), and unmatched residuals.

When to use:

  • When performing multi-transaction cash reconciliation between ledgers and statements.

  • When transparent per-match confidence scores and reason breakdowns are required for audit.

When NOT to use:

  • Do NOT use for raw, unparsed XML files; normalize input documents first using normalize_pain001 or normalize_camt053.

  • Do NOT use for single-pair tuning analysis; use explain_match instead.

  • Do NOT use for unconstrained combinatorial invoice subsets; use reconcile_many_to_many.

Behavioral transparency: Pure, deterministic, side-effect-free, read-only calculation without network or disk access.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
optionsNoOptional tuning object: 'abs_tol'/'rel_tol' (amount tolerance), 'date_window_days', 'high_threshold', 'review_threshold', 'currency_strict', 'enable_one_to_many', 'max_combination'.
expectedYesList of canonical records. Each is an object with 'id' (string) and 'amount' (number) required, plus optional 'currency' (ISO 4217), 'date' (ISO-8601), 'counterparty' (name), 'reference' (remittance/end-to-end id).
observedYesList of canonical records. Each is an object with 'id' (string) and 'amount' (number) required, plus optional 'currency' (ISO 4217), 'date' (ISO-8601), 'counterparty' (name), 'reference' (remittance/end-to-end id).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.2

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false; the description reiterates these with useful framing ('pure, deterministic, side-effect-free, read-only calculation without network or disk access'), which adds confidence about determinism and isolation but doesn't add much beyond structured data.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then organized into Purpose / When to use / When NOT to use / Behavioral sections. Each sentence is purposeful and the structure aids scanning.

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 a complex reconciliation tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, exclusions, and behavioral traits comprehensively. An agent has all it needs to select and call the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameters thoroughly. The description references the input formats (pain.001, camt.053) which contextualizes the 'expected'/'observed' semantics, but it doesn't compensate for the high schema coverage by adding further detail.

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 precise verb+resource statement ('Reconcile expected payments against observed bank-statement entries') and enumerates the specific matching scenarios handled (exact, short/over, split, batch, residuals), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like reconcile_many_to_many and explain_match.

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?

Offers explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections that name specific alternatives (normalize_pain001, normalize_camt053, explain_match, reconcile_many_to_many) and the conditions that select them, leaving no ambiguity about routing.

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