Skip to main content
Glama

Sirenic

by eu.sirenic

German insider transactions

get_german_insider_transactions
Read-only

Insider transactions at a German listed company — directors' dealings under MAR Article 19, as notified to BaFin: are its managers buying or selling? Issuer-level aggregate over a rolling 12 months — notification counts, gross buy and sell amounts, net flow, breakdown by declarer category, plus the underlying notifications. Query by LEI or ISIN (BaFin publishes no company register number). No individual is ever named, and the breakdown is withheld when it would single someone out. Paid via x402 ($0.02 in USDC or EURC).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesLEI (20 chars, ISO 17442) or ISIN (12 chars) of the German listed issuer
depuisNoStart date YYYY-MM-DD (default: rolling 12 months; BaFin keeps 12 months)
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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds genuinely behavioral context beyond that: the privacy suppression rule ('No individual is ever named, and the breakdown is withheld when it would single someone out'), the rolling 12-month data window, and the $0.02 x402 payment requirement — which is notable for a read-only tool.

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 with no filler; the main purpose is front-loaded, then output contents, query identifiers, privacy behavior, and cost each get exactly one clause. The rhetorical framing ('are its managers buying or selling?') conveys intent without adding verbosity.

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, 100% parameter coverage, and safety annotations in place, the description completes the picture with scope, legal basis, identifier requirements, privacy limits, and cost. Minor gaps: it does not explicitly route to the Belgian sibling or state behavior when no notifications exist, but these are secondary given the tool name and output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by explaining why id is restricted to LEI/ISIN ('BaFin publishes no company register number') — a rationale absent from the schema. The 'rolling 12 months' phrasing also reinforces the depuis default stated in the 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 states a precise verb+resource — retrieving insider transactions for a specific German listed issuer — and differentiates from siblings like get_belgian_insider_transactions by anchoring to Germany, MAR Article 19, and BaFin. It also enumerates the output composition (notification counts, gross buy/sell amounts, net flow, declarer-category breakdown, underlying notifications), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 conveys clear usage context: it applies to German listed companies reportable under MAR Article 19, queried by LEI or ISIN over a rolling 12-month window. It gives the identifier constraint (BaFin publishes no company register number) and payment routing (api_key vs x402), but never names a sibling alternative explicitly, so the when-not-to-use decision is left to inference from the tool name.

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