Vérifie jusqu'à 10 SIRET (14 chiffres) sur la base SIRENE INSEE locale : existence, établissement fermé, unité légale cessée, procédure collective BODACC. Si l'établissement est fermé, indique le SIRET successeur quand un lien de succession SIRENE existe. Gratuit, sans clé API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sirets | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: exact checks, local data source, conditional successor indication, and the free/no-API condition. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: three sentences, each providing valuable information. It front-loads the action and object, lists checks efficiently, and includes the successor behavior and pricing without filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only verification tool with one parameter, the description is complete: it covers purpose, source, limit, checks, successor logic, and cost. Although no output schema exists, the expected result types (existence, closure, cessation, BODACC, successor) are described.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates well by specifying the 14-digit format and the maximum of 10 SIRETs. It implies the array nature through 'jusqu'à 10 SIRET' but does not explicitly name the parameter or state it is an array.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Vérifie'), the resource (SIRET numbers), the data source (local SIRENE INSEE base), and the exact checks performed (existence, closed establishment, ceased legal unit, BODACC collective procedure). This level of detail distinguishes it from siblings like resoudre_siren or dirigeants_entreprise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear usage context: batch size limit (up to 10 SIRET), local base, free and no API key. It implies when to use the tool (verifying SIRETs) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of the full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (e.g., name-to-SIREN resolution vs SIRET verification), but croiser_deces and dirigeants_entreprise both involve death-registry matching, and the pair resoudre_siren/verifier_siret could initially confuse. However, the descriptions disambiguate well.
The naming mixes infinitive verbs (resoudre, verifier, croiser, diagnostiquer) with noun phrases (sante_entreprise, dirigeants_entreprise, surveillance_alertes), so there's no uniform verb_noun or noun pattern. Still, the names are reasonably readable and not chaotic.
With 8 tools, the server covers the core workflows of data validation, enrichment, scoring, and monitoring without bloat. Each tool addresses a distinct business need, and the count is well within the ideal range.
The surface covers identification, verification, scoring, and portfolio monitoring, but lacks a simple company detail retrieval endpoint (e.g., by SIREN) and a tool for updating/deleting non-portfolio data. These are minor gaps that can be worked around.
