Skip to main content
Glama

Sirenic

by eu.sirenic

Latvian annual accounts

get_latvian_company_accounts
Read-only

Latvian company annual accounts from official VID filings (Uzņēmumu reģistrs open data, CC0, refreshed daily) — financial statements for EVERY filed fiscal year in one call: balance sheet, P&L (revenue null = not published, never zero), cash flow when filed, employees. Figures as published: filing currency (EUR, LVL before 2014) and published rounding unit (THOUSANDS = thousands); statutory and consolidated filings kept apart. Paid via x402 ($0.03 in USDC or EURC).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
regnrYes11-digit Latvian registration number (Uzņēmumu reģistrs), e.g. 40003032065
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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them: data comes from VID open data, is refreshed daily, revenue null means 'not published' rather than zero, figures use as-published currency and rounding units, statutory and consolidated filings are kept separate, and payment occurs via x402. This is rich, non-obvious behavior that an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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 dense but every clause earns its place: source, coverage, null semantics, currency, rounding, filing-group distinction, and payment model. It front-loads the core purpose and then delivers caveats in a logical order. Despite being longer than typical descriptions, it avoids repetition and padding.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers the essential operational context: authoritative source, refresh cadence, fiscal-year completeness, currency and unit handling, null-vs-zero semantics, separation of statutory and consolidated statements, and payment behavior. Nothing critical for correctly invoking and interpreting the tool 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 regnr, api_key, and x_payment precisely. The description reinforces the annual-accounts context and payment mechanism, but does not add meaning beyond the schema for individual parameters. This meets but does not exceed the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 names a specific resource ('Latvian company annual accounts'), a precise source ('official VID filings'), and exactly what the call returns: financial statements for every filed fiscal year, including balance sheet, P&L, cash flow when filed, and employees. It clearly differentiates itself from numerous sibling tools such as get_latvian_company_officers or get_estonian_company_accounts by scoping to annual accounts for Latvian companies.

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 makes the tool's scope unmistakable: use it for Latvian annual accounts and financial statements, across all filed fiscal years in one call. It also explains relevant context like statutory vs consolidated filings and currency/rounding behavior. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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