Sirenic

French company share capital

get_french_company_capital

Read-only

Ownership / share capital structure of a French company, extracted by AI from the latest PUBLIC articles of association filed at the INPI registry: share capital, legal form, shareholders (name, role, birth year, ownership %), notable clauses, with confidence and the source document. Reconstructed from public filed deeds — NOT a beneficial-ownership register (RBE) or a beneficial-owner identification. Paid via x402 ($0.35 in USDC or EURC).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`siren`	Yes	9-digit SIREN
`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.

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

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the AI-extraction method, the exact source ('latest PUBLIC articles of association filed at the INPI registry'), and the reconstruction caveat ('Reconstructed from public filed deeds'). It also discloses the $0.35 x402 cost, which affects invocation decisions, and the 'NOT a beneficial-ownership register' caveat reinforces openWorldHint by warning that missing names do not imply absence of ownership. No contradiction with 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?

Four sentences, every one load-bearing: content and source are front-loaded, followed by the two caveats an agent needs before invoking (reconstruction/non-RBE scope and payment). No filler, no repetition of schema content, and the exclusion is stated inline where it matters.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present and 100% param coverage, the descrip'sion's job is to convey data provenance and caveats, which it does thoroughly: source, method, scope limits, and cost. Minor gaps: no behavior stated for companies with no filed articles, and no guidance on interpreting the confidence field've — small against the rich coverage.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents siren, api_key (prepaid credits vs x402, wallet-not-needed, error behavior), and x_payment (omit to get quote). The description adds only aggregate price context ($0.35 in USDC or EURC), which is mildly useful for deciding between api_key and x_payment but does not change parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 the resource precisely — 'Ownership / share capital structure of a French company' — and enumerates the delivered fields (share capital, legal form, shareholders with role/birth year/ownership %, notable clauses, confidence, source document). The 'NOT a beneficial-ownership register (RBE)' disclaimer explicitly differentiates it from beneficial-ownership siblings like get_uk_beneficial_owners and get_latvian_company_beneficial_owners, while the INPI articles-of-association source distinguishes it from other get_french_company_* tools.

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 an explicit exclusion: 'NOT a beneficial-ownership register (RBE) or a beneficial-owner identification,' which routes agents seeking true beneficial owners away from this tool. The field list (shareholders, ownership %) implies the positive use case, but it stops short of naming specific alternative tools or stating conditions like 'use get_french_company_profile for X instead.' Clear context with a genuine when-not, but no named alternatives.

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?