Wise MCP Server

A balance statement

get_statement

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a balance statement for a specified period, showing every transaction's amount, fees, running balance, and reference for supported Wise business accounts.

Instructions

A balance's statement for a period: every transaction with its amount, fees, running balance and reference. Wise allows this with a personal token only for business accounts based in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and Malaysia; elsewhere it answers 403, and list_activities is the alternative.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "balance_id": "<balance_id>",
      "currency": "<currency>",
      "from": "<from>",
      "to": "<to>"
    },
    "name": "get_statement"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes	End, ISO 8601, at most 469 days after the start.
`flat`	No	One row per fee and conversion instead of grouped (Wise's FLAT type).
`from`	Yes	Start, ISO 8601, such as 2026-10-01T00:00:00Z.
`profile`	No	The Wise profile id to act for. Defaults to WISE_PROFILE_ID, else the only business profile. See list_profiles.
`currency`	Yes	The balance's currency.
`balance_id`	Yes	The balance id, from list_balances.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the description's real contribution is the regional/account-type authorization constraint and the 403 outcome — valuable context an agent cannot get from structured fields. The remaining gap is output behavior for large statements: nothing is said about pagination, result caps, or the effect of the 469-day window on volume.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the operational caveat; no filler. The opening 'A balance's statement' is slightly awkward phrasing, but the country list and error code all earn their place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden — and it does, describing the per-transaction fields. Combined with the authorization caveat and full schema coverage on all six parameters, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly or route elsewhere.

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 every parameter including flat, profile, and the 469-day limit is already documented in structured data. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., how flat changes row identity beyond what the schema says), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a concrete resource and scope ('a balance's statement for a period') and enumerates the row contents (amount, fees, running balance, reference), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It also explicitly names the sibling it is not, list_activities, which separates it from the other activity-reading tools.

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?

It states the eligibility condition (personal token, business accounts in US/CA/AU/NZ/SG/MY), the failure mode elsewhere (403), and the alternative to use in that case (list_activities). That is an explicit when-to-use, when-not, and fallback in a single sentence.

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