Skip to main content
Glama

Sirenic

by eu.sirenic

French KYB batch (2 to 100)

get_french_company_kyb_batch
Read-only

Batch KYB: full KYB files for 2 to 100 French companies in one call. Billed per company at $0.105 (30% off the $0.15 unit price) via x402 — the amount is the unit price times the number of SIREN. A SIREN with no diffusible company is returned with trouve=false and billed as one lookup. Each file carries its own per-block provenance (official register + as_of date). Ideal for prospecting and compliance agents processing lists. A full-size request quotes up to $10.50, above the $1.00 single-payment cap that x402 clients apply BY DEFAULT since @x402/core 2.23 (spendControls): raise spendControls.maxAmountPerPayment, or set spendControls: false, before signing — otherwise your own client rejects the quote without ever calling us.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sirensYesList of 2 to 100 nine-digit SIRENs
api_keyNoOptional 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_paymentNoOptional signed x402 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header value. Omit to receive the payment quote.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hintNoHow to settle the quote, present when payment_required is true.
quoteNoThe 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`.
resultatNoThe 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_requiredYesTrue 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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even though readOnlyHint=true is present, the description discloses far more: per-company billing at a specific price, behavior when a SIREN has no diffusible company ('trouve=false and billed as one lookup'), per-block provenance with official register and as_of date, and the client-side x402 spendControls failure mode. These are behavioral details not present in annotations and genuinely useful for an agent.

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 dense but efficient: it covers purpose, pricing, edge behavior, and a critical payment caveat in a compact block. The sentence about x402 spendControls is long and contains several clauses, but each clause adds distinct operational value. It earns a 4 rather than 5 because the final payment sentence is somewhat convoluted and could be split for clarity.

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?

The description covers all decision-relevant aspects: batch size range, billing model, per-SIREN edge case, provenance behavior, and the client-side spend-control requirement. The output schema exists, and no critical operational detail is missing. For a complex payment-bearing batch tool, this is fully complete.

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 sirens, api_key, and x_payment well. The description adds useful semantic context about billing ('Billed per company at $0.105... amount is the unit price times the number of SIREN') and payment fallback behavior ('On insufficient balance the tool returns a credits error'), but it does not need to restate parameter syntax. A 3 reflects adequate description-level contribution above a fully-covered schema.

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 identifies this as a batch KYB tool for 2 to 100 French companies, states it returns full KYB files, and contrasts with the single-company counterpart through the phrase 'Batch KYB'. It clearly includes the batching scope and the resource acted upon, making it distinguishable from siblings like get_french_company_kyb_file.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Ideal for prospecting and compliance agents processing lists.' It also provides crucial usage context around billing, the 'trouve=false' edge case, and the x402 spend-control configuration needed for payment. This goes well beyond vague guidance and directly helps an agent decide between this and single-company tools.

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

All Sirenic toolsInspect
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