Sirenic

Lithuanian annual accounts

get_lithuanian_company_accounts

Read-only

Lithuanian company annual accounts — balance sheets and profit-and-loss statements filed at the Juridinių asmenų registras (Registrų centras open data on data.gov.lt, CC BY 4.0, financial years 2015+, daily snapshot): EVERY filed financial year in one call — non-current and current assets, total assets (published or summed), equity, liabilities, tangible fixed assets, revenue, income, profit before tax, net profit, in EUR as published; filing template and standard, filing date. Only structured filings exist in the source (partial coverage stated); source lines published twice are merged and any disagreement is flagged in postes_divergents. Null = not published, never zero. Unknown JAR code or no structured filing = 404 (no charge). Paid via x402 ($0.02 in USDC or EURC).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kodas`	Yes	9-digit Lithuanian JAR code (Juridinių asmenų registras), e.g. 304500803
`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, and every paid JSON response carries a `provenance` array (all tools since 2026-09-06) — one entry per block served, with the official register, licence, version, `as_of` date and `precision_as_of` (what that date means), plus the common per-block envelope: `etat` in a closed list (servi, absence_mesuree, absence_non_conclusive, partiel, perime, indisponible, sans_objet), `motif` when unavailable, `age_jours` (only for publication or ingestion dates), `couverture` (complete / partielle / non_mesurable with its measure) and `confiance` in bands (faible / moyenne / forte, only where a measure grounds it, never averaged across blocks). Read the states before the numbers: an absence_non_conclusive, indisponible or partiel block is never « nothing to report » — only absence_mesuree asserts an absence. Register codes: GET /v1/provenance/registres ; states, closed lists and reading rules: GET /v1/lecture (both free). The PDF tools carry no JSON envelope (the PDF report prints it).
`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`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedSep 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses payment requirements and cost, null-value semantics, 404 behavior, source merging with divergence flags, and data freshness (daily snapshot, 2015+). This is far richer than the annotations alone and gives the agent an accurate model of side effects and edge cases.

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 and front-loaded with the core resource and fields, then covers caveats, payment, and edge cases. It is long but every clause carries needed information; the heavy use of semicolons compresses it into a single readable block. Slight overpacking prevents a 5, but no fluff is present.

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 a paid tool with error semantics, null handling, source limitations, and duplicate-merge behavior, the description covers all operational concerns an agent needs. An output schema exists, so return-value structure is already documented; the description adds the missing contextual and contractual details.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions and a pattern for kodas, giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds context about 404 behavior and payment, but does not meaningfully extend per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific resource (Lithuanian company annual accounts) with a clear verb implied by the tool name, enumerating the exact data fields (assets, equity, liabilities, revenue, profit). It distinguishes itself from sibling country-account tools by country and from get_lithuanian_company_insolvency by content, so an agent can select it confidently.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use the tool (when Lithuanian structured annual accounts are needed) and provides useful limitations (only structured filings, partial coverage), but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. Coverage and filing-date constraints are present, yet no explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance is given.

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

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?