Skip to main content
Glama

Sirenic

by eu.sirenic

Slovak annual accounts (RUZ)

get_slovak_company_filing
Read-only

One Slovak fiscal year decoded from the structured statements filed with the RÚZ — balance sheet and profit and loss, 16 key items: net turnover (null = not published, never zero), operating income and costs, value added, staff costs, operating, financial, pre-tax and net result, income tax, total assets, non-current and current assets, equity, share capital, liabilities — plus prior-year comparatives as published in the same filing. Amounts in euros, never converted. Closing date comes from list_slovak_company_filings; scope defaults to the statutory filing. Paid via x402 ($0.03 in USDC or EURC).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
icoYes8-digit Slovak IČO, e.g. 36417475
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.
perimetreNoFiling scope: statutory (default) or consolidated — never merged
x_paymentNoOptional signed x402 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header value. Omit to receive the payment quote.
type_depotNoFiling type from the filings list (Riadna, Mimoriadna…), when two filings share the same closing date; defaults to the ordinary one
date_clotureYesFiscal-year closing date, YYYY-MM-DD, e.g. 2025-12-31

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: null means not published and never zero, amounts are always in euros and never converted, prior-year comparatives come from the same filing, the default scope is statutory, and payment is via x402 at a specified cost. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context that the annotations alone do not provide.

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: it lists the exact data items, clarifies null and currency semantics, points to the companion list tool, and states the cost. No filler or repetition of the schema 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 the output schema exists and the annotations already indicate read-only/open-world behavior, the description covers the remaining practical context an agent needs: data source, item scope, currency policy, null handling, default scope, dependency on a list call, and payment method. Nothing critical is missing.

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?

The schema already documents all six parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds at least one meaningful parameter-related insight: the closing date must be sourced from list_slovak_company_filings, and the default scope is statutory. This is useful context beyond the raw 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 names a specific resource (Slovak RÚZ annual accounts), a specific verb-like action (decoding one fiscal year), and a concrete inventory of the 16 returned items. It is clearly distinguishable from the many country-specific sibling filing tools because it names the Slovak source and data elements.

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?

It tells the agent that the closing date comes from list_slovak_company_filings and that scope defaults to the statutory filing, which is practical routing guidance. It does not explicitly say 'use this instead of other filing tools', but the country-specific scope and explicit dependency on the list tool make the intended workflow clear.

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