Sirenic

French company intelligence report

get_french_company_intelligence

Read-only

Use for a GO/NO-GO decision (credit, investment, partnership) on a French company. Company INTELLIGENCE report — every Sirenic block cross-referenced in one call: identity & officers, financials with 3-year trend, sector positioning vs NAF peers, failure-risk score, BODACC legal alerts, sanctions screening (6 official lists, company + each officer), public procurement (French DECP + EU TED), IP assets, cached capital structure, industrial-risk synthesis (Seveso/ICPE), AMF PSAN/SGP register statuses, HATVP lobbying summary and a live VIES VAT check. Returns closed-list SIGNALS traced to their register source, a deterministic verdict (solide/correct/fragile/critique) and strengths/vigilance points. Every block states the official register it comes from and its as_of date, so the report is auditable offline once the Ed25519 signature is verified. The flagship due-diligence call. Paid via x402 ($1.00 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?

Annotations only say readOnly and openWorld, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: returns closed-list signals traced to register sources, a deterministic verdict, strengths/vigilance points, per-block as_of dates, offline auditability via Ed25519 signature, and x402 payment flow. This goes well beyond what annotations convey.

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 long, but the tool is a composite report covering many data blocks, and each listed item adds selection-relevant information. It front-loads the decision use case and remains focused despite the breadth.

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 complex flagship tool with an output schema, the description covers the full range of returned content, source traceability, verdict logic, payment behavior, and auditability. Nothing critical for invoking it correctly or understanding its output is missing.

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, and x_payment. The description adds the $1.00 x402 cost context and reiterates the payment mechanism, but it doesn't materially enrich parameter understanding beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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?

States a specific use case (GO/NO-GO due-diligence decision) and a specific deliverable (cross-referenced company intelligence report), enumerating the covered blocks from officers to VIES VAT. Clearly distinguishes it as the 'flagship due-diligence call' compared to the long sibling list of narrower 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?

Explicitly scopes the tool to credit, investment, or partnership decisions and positions it as the one-call comprehensive option. It does not name specific lighter-weight alternatives to use instead for simpler checks, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route appropriately.

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?