Skip to main content
Glama

Sirenic

by eu.sirenic

Prepare Belgian or Polish invoice file

prepare_european_invoice_file
Read-only

Use when the company you are about to invoice or pay is BELGIAN or POLISH and you must verify the supplier before payment (for France, use prepare_french_invoice_file). ONE call returns official registry identity, the VAT number checked against VIES, Peppol reachability for Belgium — whose structured B2B e-invoicing mandate has been in force since 1 January 2026 — and, uniquely in Poland, whether the IBAN is actually DECLARED by that taxpayer in the official White List (wykaz podatnikow VAT). The Polish check has FISCAL scope: paying more than 15,000 PLN into an undeclared account costs the buyer the deduction and creates joint liability for the supplier's VAT (art. 117ba Ordynacja podatkowa), so an undeclared account is a blocking reason. Everywhere else the bank leg is a FORM check (ISO 13616 structure + mod-97 key) plus bank identification — never a payee verification: with an iban supplied, verdict.non_verifie sits next to the verdict and names what is not checked (account existence, holder name), and the White List itself proves the account is DECLARED by that taxpayer, never who holds it. Returns a deterministic pret_a_facturer verdict with closed-list reasons, each tagged blocking or informational. The response is Ed25519-signed and carries provenance[] — one entry per block served, with the official register, its licence and its as_of date, the White List entry carrying the date actually sent to the ministry's API — so the payment decision is provable to an auditor offline. Paid via x402 ($0.03 in USDC or EURC).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesBelgian enterprise number (10 digits, KBO/BCE) or Polish NIP (10 digits); dots, spaces and dashes are tolerated
ibanNoIBAN of the account you are about to pay, unpunctuated (spaces tolerated) — optional, but it is what unlocks the Polish White List account check, and everywhere the structure check plus bank identification
paysYesCountry of the counterparty: BE (Belgium) or PL (Poland). For France use prepare_french_invoice_file.
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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing that it returns a deterministic pret_a_facturer verdict, closed-list reasons, Ed25519-signed responses, provenance entries, and a paid x402 mechanism. It also explicitly states what the bank leg does NOT verify, preventing misinterpretation of IBAN check results.

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?

Every sentence earns its place and the use case is front-loaded, but the description is a dense single paragraph with several legal, fiscal, and technical details that could be restructured into clearer sections. It is not verbose, but it is heavier than needed for quick agent scanning.

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 tool with this complexity — two countries, legal consequences, IBAN verification semantics, auditability, and payment — the description covers all essential decision factors: when to call, what checks are performed, which results are blocking, and what the response guarantees. The output schema handles the detailed return structure, so the description is appropriately complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value on top: the iban parameter is explained as unlocking the Polish White List check and as a structure-only check elsewhere. It also clarifies that api_key and x_payment are alternative payment routes, which is not obvious from the schema alone.

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?

States a clear, specific purpose: prepare an invoice file for Belgian or Polish counterparties while verifying the supplier before payment. It explicitly distinguishes itself from prepare_french_invoice_file and describes the core output (registry identity, VAT check, Peppol, White List check).

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?

Opens with a direct when-to-use instruction for Belgian or Polish companies and names the France alternative explicitly. It also clarifies the conditional role of the IBAN parameter and the blocking nature of the Polish White List check, leaving little ambiguity about invocation choices.

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