Sirenic

Estonian annual accounts

get_estonian_company_accounts

Read-only

Estonian company annual accounts — annual-report key figures from the official e-Business Register open data (RIK, CC BY 4.0, refreshed MONTHLY): EVERY published financial year since 2019 in one call — balance sheet (assets, equity, current/non-current liabilities, cash), revenue, employee expense, depreciation, operating profit, profit before tax, net profit and average FTE headcount, in EUR as published (null = not published, never zero). Statutory and consolidated figures kept apart. Filings submitted as PDF only carry no structured figures and are not served. Paid via x402 ($0.02 in USDC or EURC).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`api_key`	No	Optional 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_payment`	No	Optional signed x402 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header value. Omit to receive the payment quote.
`registrikood`	Yes	8-digit Estonian registry code (registrikood, e-Business Register), e.g. 10003666

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`hint`	No	How to settle the quote, present when payment_required is true.
`quote`	No	The 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`.
`resultat`	No	The 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_required`	Yes	True 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

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds refresh cadence ('refreshed MONTHLY'), null semantics ('null = not published, never zero'), the statutory/consolidated split, the PDF-only exclusion, and the x402 payment requirement. This is rich behavioral context that materially shapes agent expectations.

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 dense but every segment earns its place: scope, data source, refresh policy, coverage, field list, data semantics, exclusions, and payment terms. The purpose is front-loaded, with caveats and payment details following in a natural order.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations already cover read-only/open-world behavior, the description covers all operational essentials: data source, freshness, year coverage, exact fields, null behavior, filing-type exclusions, and payment mechanism. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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?

The schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions and 100% coverage. The description adds useful interpretive context such as 'in EUR as published' and the null semantics, but it does not need to compensate for any schema gap.

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 the resource ('Estonian company annual accounts'), the data source ('official e-Business Register open data'), and the exact figures covered. The explicit Estonia/RIK focus distinguishes it from the many sibling annual-account tools for other countries.

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 scope is explicit: every published financial year since 2019 in one call, statutory and consolidated figures kept separate, and PDF-only filings excluded. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for non-Estonian accounts, but the geographic and registry-specific scope gives clear usage context.

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

All Sirenic tools Inspect

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

Need Help?