Sirenic

Estonian company members and shareholders

get_estonian_company_shareholders

Read-only

Members and shareholders of an Estonian company from the official e-Business Register share register (RIK, CC BY 4.0), refreshed daily from the national photo: holding percentage, nominal value and currency as published (EEK before 2011, never converted), ownership type (sole, joint, undivided), verification source and registration date; AS shareholders and founders recorded beside the card under the same rule; share pledges and conditional transfers; capital from the general data when fresh; detenu_par_personnes_physiques_pct. Corporate holders are named with their registrikood or foreign code and country; natural persons are COUNTED with their holding and never named (GDPR, no chain to natural persons). Legal persons only: sole proprietorships are refused (404, payment cancelled). aucun_associe_inscrit: true is a register fact for a known legal person (its meaning depends on the legal form: dematerialised AS shares are held by the central depository). 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, and every paid JSON response carries a `provenance` array (all tools since 2026-09-06) — one entry per block served, with the official register, licence, version, `as_of` date and `precision_as_of` (what that date means), plus the common per-block envelope: `etat` in a closed list (servi, absence_mesuree, absence_non_conclusive, partiel, perime, indisponible, sans_objet), `motif` when unavailable, `age_jours` (only for publication or ingestion dates), `couverture` (complete / partielle / non_mesurable with its measure) and `confiance` in bands (faible / moyenne / forte, only where a measure grounds it, never averaged across blocks). Read the states before the numbers: an absence_non_conclusive, indisponible or partiel block is never « nothing to report » — only absence_mesuree asserts an absence. Register codes: GET /v1/provenance/registres ; states, closed lists and reading rules: GET /v1/lecture (both free). The PDF tools carry no JSON envelope (the PDF report prints it).
`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`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedSep 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds substantial behavioral context: GDPR restrictions (natural persons never named), corporate holder naming rules, the meaning of 'aucun_associe_inscrit', payment requirements (x402, USDC/EURC), refusal cases, and data freshness ('refreshed daily'). This goes far beyond the annotations and clearly informs the agent of edge cases and 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single long sentence with semicolons, but every clause adds essential information—data fields, GDPR rules, legal entity scope, payment, and edge cases. It is dense but not redundant, and it front-loads the core purpose before diving into specifics. A slightly more structured formatting (e.g., bullets) would improve readability, but the content is efficient.

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 complexity of the tool (payment, GDPR, legal entity rules, multiple output fields) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: data source, refresh rate, legal constraints, payment method, refusal conditions, and special register facts. An agent can fully understand when and how to invoke this tool without needing additional clarification.

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 describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, including the pattern for registrikood and the purpose of api_key and x_payment. The description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, but it does mention the payment mechanism contextually. Since the schema covers everything, a baseline score of 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 explicitly states the tool returns members and shareholders of an Estonian company from the official e-Business Register, with detailed specifics about the data (holding percentage, nominal value, ownership type, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_estonian_company_officers or get_estonian_company_accounts by naming the resource and scope.

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 gives explicit when-not conditions: 'Legal persons only: sole proprietorships are refused (404, payment cancelled)' and clarifies that natural persons are only counted, not named. However, it does not mention alternative tools for other jurisdictions or related data (e.g., beneficial owners), so it lacks explicit alternatives. Overall, it provides clear usage context without naming siblings.

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

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?