Skip to main content
Glama

Sirenic

by eu.sirenic

Swedish annual accounts

get_swedish_company_accounts
Read-only

Annual accounts of a Swedish company, decoded from the official iXBRL filings Bolagsverket publishes free of charge (EU high-value datasets, since 3 February 2025): EVERY digitally filed fiscal year in one call — turnover (null = not disclosed under the K2 abridged format, never zero), operating and net result, total assets, equity, long- and short-term debt, average employees, plus the prior-year column as filed. Figures as published, in the filing currency (SEK). IMPORTANT COVERAGE LIMIT: digital filing is OPTIONAL in Sweden (~63% of annual reports in 2025, 53% in 2024) and the corpus starts with filings RECEIVED from 2020 — a company that is absent may simply have filed on paper. Officers (företrädare) are NOT available for Sweden: they are not part of the free datasets. Paid via x402 ($0.03 in USDC or EURC).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
orgnrYes10-digit Swedish organisationsnummer, with or without hyphen, e.g. 5560401977 or 556040-1977
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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, which the description complements by stating that null only means undisclosed under K2, not zero, which is important for interpreting results rather than quoting them as actual zero debts or turnover. It also explains currency (SEK) and the payment flow nuances (x402 quote vs api_key credit path, credits error on insufficient balance), giving the agent accurate expectations about response semantics.

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 well organized, with the core result fields and coverage caveat front-loaded before the payment detail. Every clause carries either a clarifying constraint (null, not zero), a source validation, or a coverage date range, and the prominent coverage warning is placed where an agent will see it before calling. No filler.

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?

For a country-specific read-only accounts tool with both output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the essential context: source provenance, data selection logic, fiscal-year behavior, currency, null semantics, coverage gaps, and payment path. An agent deciding between this and get_norwegian_company_accounts or get_uk_company_accounts has enough to select correctly without opening the 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 behavioral meaning to parameters beyond the schema by explaining the tool-level payment semantics (x402 optional path returns a payment quote; api_key uses prepaid credits; signed payment wins if both provided). It doesn't add detail to orgnr beyond the schema, but the description's payment-flow comments clarify what happens when parameters are omitted, which is useful invocation guidance.

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 identifies a specific verb-resource pair (get Swedish annual accounts) and differentiates it from sibling country-specific account tools by naming the data source (iXBRL filings from Bolagsverket), the exact data fields covered, and the coverage limitation that distinguishes it from paper-filed accounts. It also clarifies that officers are not included, distinguishing it from get_swedish_company_registry_events and officer-style tools.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly states when the tool is appropriate (all digitally filed fiscal years in one call) and gives concrete usage caveats: digital filing is optional in Sweden (~63% in 2025, 53% in 2024), corpus starts with filings received from 2020, and absence may mean paper filing. It also states what will NOT be returned (officers), so an agent won't waste a call expecting them.

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