Sirenic

UK annual accounts (iXBRL)

get_uk_company_accounts

Read-only

One UK financial year — UK company financial statements decoded from the iXBRL accounts filed at Companies House: balance sheet (fixed and current assets, stocks, debtors, cash, creditors split by maturity, provisions, net assets, equity), average employees, and the profit and loss account when filed (turnover, operating, pre-tax and net result — most small companies file a balance sheet only), plus prior-year comparatives as published. Null = not published, never zero. Balance-sheet date comes from list_uk_company_accounts. Paid via x402 ($0.05 in USDC or EURC).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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.
`date_cloture`	Yes	Balance-sheet date, YYYY-MM-DD, e.g. 2025-12-31
`company_number`	Yes	Companies House company number, 8 characters incl. leading zeros, e.g. 00095407 or SC123456

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; 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_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`.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals important behavior: null values mean 'not published, never zero', prior-year comparatives are included as published, and P&L data is only present when filed. It also discloses the x402 payment requirement and cost, which is valuable operational context an agent cannot infer from the schema or annotations.

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: scope, content breakdown, filing caveats, null semantics, date source, and payment cost. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 tool has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It fully covers the data content, edge cases, payment expectations, and the prerequisite relationship to list_uk_company_accounts, making it complete for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds a useful link between date_cloture and list_uk_company_accounts and clarifies the payment relationship, but it does not add substantial semantics for company_number or the authentication parameters beyond 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 names a specific verb, resource, and scope: 'get_uk_company_accounts' decodes UK company financial statements for one UK financial year from iXBRL accounts filed at Companies House. It enumerates the exact statement line items and distinguishes this from similar country-specific account tools by grounding it in Companies House and UK filing conventions.

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 gives clear contextual guidance: it explains what data is included, notes that most small companies file a balance sheet only, and instructs that the balance-sheet date comes from list_uk_company_accounts. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other UK data tools, but the prerequisite and expectations are clear enough for an agent to decide.

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

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

Need Help?