Skip to main content
Glama

Sirenic

by eu.sirenic

French public buyer profile

get_french_public_buyer_profile
Read-only

Procurement profile of a French public buyer (by SIRET): contract volumes by year, top CPV segments, incumbent suppliers with their contracts expiring within 18 months, framework-agreement share, average bids received per tender and median publication delay — the buying habits to know before a sourcing meeting. From official DECP open data. Paid via x402 ($0.02 in USDC or EURC).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siretYes14-digit SIRET of the public buyer, e.g. 26310012500016 (CHU de Toulouse)
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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds valuable context about the data source ('From official DECP open data') and the payment mechanism/cost ('Paid via x402 ($0.02 in USDC or EURC)'). It does not contradict any annotation and provides information beyond what the structured fields supply.

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 information-dense but compact: one front-loaded sentence enumerating the key data points, followed by two short sentences on data source and payment. Every clause earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a read-only data retrieval tool, the description covers the main output categories, data source, and cost. An output schema exists, so the tool need not explain exact return fields. It could mention limitations such as open-world data coverage, but the annotations already carry that signal.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the siret, api_key, and x_payment parameters. The description mentions 'by SIRET' but does not add any meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the resource ('Procurement profile of a French public buyer (by SIRET)') and enumerates the specific data returned: contract volumes by year, CPV segments, incumbent suppliers with expiring contracts, framework-agreement share, bids per tender, and publication delay. This level of specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_french_company_public_procurement or find_expiring_french_public_contracts, which cover related but different aspects of French procurement.

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 a clear usage context: 'the buying habits to know before a sourcing meeting.' It does not name explicit alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the scenario is specific enough for an agent to infer when this tool is relevant compared to generic company-profile or contract-search 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