Skip to main content
Glama

Prepare French invoice file

prepare_french_invoice_file
Read-only

Use when you are about to invoice or pay a FRENCH company and must verify the supplier before payment: onboarding, first invoice, first payment, or bank details that just changed. The French e-invoicing mandate applies from 1 September 2026 (receiving obligatory for every VAT-liable company; issuing phased: large and mid-sized companies 1 September 2026, SMEs and micro-enterprises 1 September 2027), so every French counterparty has to be checked. ONE call returns the whole agent-side file: legal identity & obligation dates, the computed intra-EU VAT number verified LIVE against VIES, an IBAN FORM check (ISO 13616 structure + mod-97 key) with the bank identified from official registries when iban is supplied, and a deterministic verdict pret_a_facturer (true/false) whose reasons come from a CLOSED list, each tagged blocking or informational and traced to its source. A VIES outage yields an honest informational reason, never a false invalid. Not a payee verification, and the verdict says so where the decision is read: with an iban supplied, verdict.non_verifie sits NEXT TO pret_a_facturer and names what is never checked — the account's existence and the holder's name. An IBAN on a published list of known documentation samples is flagged by the informational reason iban_exemple_documentation, whose absence is not proof of the contrary (the verdict stays green: such an IBAN is well-formed; the account's existence is not tested). The response is Ed25519-signed and carries provenance[] — one entry per block served, with the official register, its licence and its as_of date — so the decision stays auditable offline months later. Paid via x402 ($0.03 in USDC or EURC).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ibanNoIBAN of the account you are about to pay (spaces and dashes tolerated). Supplying it adds the structure check and the bank identification, and lets the verdict block on iban_invalide; omitting it yields the informational reason iban_non_fourni
sirenYes9-digit SIREN of the French counterparty being checked — the customer you will invoice or the supplier you will pay (digits only, no spaces)
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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint/openWorldHint), so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds very substantial context: deterministic verdicts from a closed reason list, honest VIES-outage handling, non_verifie semantics, Ed25519 signing, provenance entries, sample-IBAN handling, and x402 pricing. There is no contradiction with the annotations; the openWorldHint is reinforced by the warning that absence of a sample-IBAN flag is not proof of the contrary.

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 long but front-loaded with the use case, and nearly every sentence carries functional information about edge cases or output behavior. It is somewhat repetitive around the payee-verification caveat, which costs a point, but it is not padded with generic 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?

Given the output schema exists and handles return-value shapes, the description appropriately covers the remaining context: when to call, what edge cases to expect, what is and is not verified, how payment works, and how the result remains auditable. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful conditional behavior: supplying iban activates the structure check and bank identification, omitting it yields the iban_non_fourni reason, and it explains the interplay between api_key and x_payment. This goes beyond the schema's type and pattern constraints.

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 verb and resource and then enumerates exactly what the returned 'whole agent-side file' contains: legal identity, VIES-verified VAT number, IBAN structure check, bank identification, and a deterministic pret_a_facturer verdict. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from payee verification, which helps separate it from the many French-company sibling tools.

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 opening sentence gives concrete triggers: invoicing or paying a French company, onboarding, first invoice, first payment, and changed bank details. The 'FRENCH' and 'before payment' conditions make the intended context clear, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like prepare_french_einvoicing_recipient or verify_french_invoice for contrast.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

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