Skip to main content
Glama

Sirenic

by eu.sirenic

Compare French companies

compare_french_companies
Read-only

Use when asked to compare, rank or choose between 2 to 5 French companies (suppliers, candidates, competitors). Returns a cross-table (identity, deterministic default-risk score, latest filed accounts with their accounting scope, BODACC legal alerts, sanctions screening of the legal name), per-axis rankings and — importantly — an explicit comparabilite block stating when the companies are NOT comparable (different sectors, different sizes, a holding in the batch). NEVER returns an overall winner: a holding with no debt outranks a large industrial group on default risk, which would be misread as a verdict on quality. Billed per company at $0.12 via x402 — the amount is the unit price times the number of SIREN.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sirensYesList of 2 to 5 nine-digit SIRENs
api_keyNoOptional Sirenic API key (srn_live_…) to pay with prepaid credits instead of x402 — no wallet needed. Get one at https://api.sirenic.eu/compte. Ignored when x_payment is provided (the signed payment wins). On insufficient balance the tool returns a credits error, not an x402 quote.
x_paymentNoOptional signed x402 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header value. Omit to receive the payment quote.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hintNoHow to settle the quote, present when payment_required is true.
quoteNoThe signable x402 payment requirements when payment_required is true: {x402Version, accepts[]} where each entry carries scheme, network, amount, asset and payTo (USDC and EURC options at the same numeric amount). Sign one entry and call again with `x_payment`.
resultatNoThe endpoint's JSON response when payment_required is false. Paid responses carry `source`, `disclaimer` and an Ed25519 signature; KYB, batch KYB, sanctions, intelligence and the five invoicing tools (prepare_french_invoice_file, prepare_european_invoice_file, prepare_french_einvoicing_recipient, verify_iban_bank, validate_eu_vat_number) also carry a `provenance` array — one entry per block served, with the official register, licence, version, `as_of` date and `precision_as_of` (what that date means). Codes are documented at GET /v1/provenance/registres (free).
payment_requiredYesTrue when this response is an x402 payment quote instead of data: settle one of the quote's `accepts` options and call the tool again with `x_payment`.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true) cover the safety profile, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the 'NEVER returns an overall winner' design decision with its rationale, the explicit comparabilite block flagging non-comparable batches, and the per-company billing model. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent needs to interpret results and cost correctly.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger, then outputs, then the critical no-winner caveat, then cost. Every sentence carries distinct information; the length is justified by the billing model and the counterintuitive design decision, with no filler.

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?

Backed by an output schema and 100% parameter documentation, the description covers the non-obvious output behaviors (comparabilite block, per-axis rankings, no winner) and the cost model. For a complex multi-company comparison tool with payment options, nothing needed to decide whether and how to call it is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds the billing formula — 'the amount is the unit price times the number of SIREN' — which gives the sirens parameter real cost implications, and the x402/api_key alternation is reinforced by the description's payment context. That is meaningful value beyond the schema.

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 states specific verbs — 'compare, rank or choose' — tied to a precise resource: '2 to 5 French companies (suppliers, candidates, competitors)'. This distinguishes it clearly from the sibling list's many single-company getters like get_french_company_default_risk or get_french_company_financials, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 opening 'Use when asked to compare, rank or choose between 2 to 5 French companies' is an explicit trigger with a count range and entity scope. It does not name specific alternative tools for single-company lookups, but the contrast with the single-company siblings is implicit and unambiguous.

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

All Sirenic toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several French company bundles overlap in purpose (get_french_company_file, get_french_company_kyb_file, get_french_company_intelligence, get_french_company_health_summary) and procurement/competitor tools overlap (get_french_company_public_procurement, get_eu_procurement_awards, get_company_procurement_competitors). Although descriptions try to differentiate, an agent could easily select the wrong tool when looking for a company overview or procurement history.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent get_/list_/search_ + country + entity pattern, e.g. get_french_company_profile, list_danish_company_filings, so navigation is predictable. Deviations like check_french_regulator_alerts, suggest_company_names, verify_iban_bank, and the prepare_* verbs are understandable but break the strict verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count1/5

77 tools is excessive for a single server regardless of how broad the domain is; the calibration treats 50+ as an extreme mismatch. While France is well covered and several countries appear, much of the surface is micro-endpoints (list_/get_ filing pairs per country) that could be consolidated.

Completeness3/5

France coverage is impressively complete (identity, financials, legal events, procurement, IP, risk, surveillance, invoicing), and the surveillance lifecycle has create/get/renew/stop. But European coverage is inconsistent: Germany has only insider transactions, Spain only acts, and several major jurisdictions lack accounts/officers/insolvency; an agent expecting 'European company due diligence' will hit dead ends.

Resources