Sirenic

Estonian registry rulings

get_estonian_company_registry_rulings

Read-only

Registry rulings (määrused) of an Estonian company from the official e-Business Register open data (RIK, CC BY 4.0, DAILY national photo): registry entries, orders to remedy defects, warnings of striking-off for an unfiled annual report, warnings of compulsory dissolution for insufficient net assets, and annual-report fines — each with its date, extra deadline, status and force date, Estonian codes and labels as published. An alerte flag marks the CLOSED list of warning/fine types returned with the answer; nombre_alertes excludes only rulings whose etat_code is EXPLICITLY known as resolved (currently L only) — a qualified ruling later resolved that way keeps alerte: true but no longer counts, while every other state (including J, K, or any code not yet seen) still counts, fail-closed on the unknown. types_non_qualifies lists this entity's other rule types, so a zero is never read as “no warning”. A still-registered entity with no ruling returns an explicit positive answer, dated with the photo actually served (photo_le); a struck-off entity leaves the open data entirely and returns 404 instead of a false clean sheet. 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 readOnly and openWorld hints, the description reveals critical query behavior: the alerte flag is a closed list, nombre_alertes fail-closes on unknown etat codes, types_non_qualifies prevents false zeros, a no-ruling entity gets an explicit positive answer, and struck-off entities return 404. It also discloses the x402 payment model and cost, adding substantial value beyond annotations.

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 long but every clause earns its place: source, ruling types, flag semantics, edge cases, and payment are all material for correct invocation and interpretation. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and progresses to behavioral nuances without filler or tautology.

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?

For a read-only query tool with an output schema, the description covers the full lifecycle: what is returned, how to interpret alert counts and unknown codes, what happens with no rulings versus struck-off entities, data provenance/update cadence, and payment prerequisites. An agent has everything needed to select, call, and interpret results without external lookup.

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 input schema already covers all parameters with rich descriptions (registrikood pattern, api_key purpose, x_payment behavior), so the bar is set by the 100% schema coverage. The description adds only the price and payment currency detail, which is useful but marginal; it does not need to explain parameters further, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource: registry rulings of an Estonian company, enumerating concrete ruling types (registry entries, orders to remedy defects, strike-off warnings, dissolution warnings, annual-report fines). It also states the authoritative source and update pattern, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_estonian_company_accounts.

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 makes the usage context highly evident through the enumerated warning and fine types, plus the 404-vs-clean-sheet semantics for struck-off entities. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5, but the practical context is clear and free of ambiguity.

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?