Skip to main content
Glama

Sirenic

by eu.sirenic

Danish annual accounts

get_danish_company_filing
Read-only

One Danish fiscal year — financial statements decoded from the company's XBRL annual report (Erhvervsstyrelsen): revenue (null = not published, never zero), gross result, operating result, pre-tax and net result, equity, total assets, debts, average employees, plus prior-year comparatives as published in the same filing. Amounts in the filing currency (mostly DKK); the official XBRL document URL is included. Closing date comes from list_danish_company_filings. Paid via x402 ($0.05 in USDC or EURC).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes8-digit Danish CVR number
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.
date_clotureYesFiscal-year closing date, YYYY-MM-DD, e.g. 2025-12-31

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the null semantics for revenue ('null = not published, never zero'), the filing currency, inclusion of the XBRL document URL, and the cost/paid nature via x402. This goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations about the returned data and invocation side effects.

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?

The description is a single dense paragraph with no filler. Every clause carries information: fiscal-year scope, decoded fields, null behavior, currency, URL inclusion, input source, and cost. The most important content (purpose and key data fields) is front-loaded.

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 the output schema exists and the annotations cover read-only behavior, the description provides enough to call the tool correctly: the data returned, null semantics, currency, source of the closing date parameter, and payment method. No critical gap remains for an agent to invoke it successfully.

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?

While the input schema already documents all parameters at 100% coverage, the description adds important contextual meaning: it names list_danish_company_filings as the source for date_cloture, and clarifies how payment parameters relate to the x402 flow. This is incremental value beyond the schema, not a repetition.

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 a specific verb ('get'), resource ('Danish company filing' / annual accounts), and scope ('One Danish fiscal year'), and enumerates the exact financial fields returned. It is clearly distinct from sibling filing tools for other countries and from the list_danish_company_filings tool by specifying the decoded XBRL content.

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 description explicitly tells the agent where the required closing date comes from ('Closing date comes from list_danish_company_filings'), which provides a clear precondition and routes to the correct sibling. It also clarifies the payment model (x402 or api_key). It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the national and content scope makes the intended use 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