Skip to main content
Glama

Sirenic

by eu.sirenic

Sanctions screening (AML)

screen_sanctions_lists
Read-only

Use BEFORE any payment, contract or onboarding involving the name. AML sanctions screening of a person or company name against 6 official sanctions lists (UN consolidated, EU FSF, US OFAC SDN, UK Sanctions List, French asset-freeze register, Swiss SECO list). Returns fuzzy matches with a 0-100 confidence score — never a bare yes/no. Each list is reported with its entry count, its publication date and what that date means (official upstream publication vs. Sirenic ingestion — OFAC publishes none). Paid via x402 ($0.02 in USDC or EURC).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesPerson or company name to screen
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.
birth_yearNoOptional birth year (YYYY) to refine person matches

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description discloses several behavioral traits: it returns fuzzy matches with a 0-100 confidence score rather than a bare yes/no, explains that each list reports entry count, publication date and what the date means (official upstream vs. Sirenic ingestion), and notes the x402 payment requirement with cost details. This significantly enhances the agent's understanding of what to expect and how to interpret results.

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 front-loaded with the critical usage instruction ('Use BEFORE...'), then concisely explains the tool's function, output format, list details, and payment mechanism. Each sentence contributes unique information with no redundancy or filler. The length is justified by the wealth of relevant behavioral and contextual details.

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?

There is an output schema (has output schema: true), so return values are presumably covered there. The description covers all essential operational aspects: when to use, what it screens, how results are presented, list composition, date semantics, and cost. It even explains the payment options and error behavior for insufficient balance, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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 (name, api_key, x_payment, birth_year). The description does not add extra semantic nuance beyond what the schema provides; it merely implies the primary parameter usage via 'involving the name'. Following the calibration guideline for >80% coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: AML sanctions screening of a person or company name against 6 named official sanctions lists. It specifies the exact resource (name), the action (screening), and the output (fuzzy matches with confidence score), making it easily distinguishable from all sibling tools, which focus on other compliance/company data functions.

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 an explicit when-to-use instruction: 'Use BEFORE any payment, contract or onboarding involving the name.' This is clear contextual guidance. However, it doesn't mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but since no sibling tool addresses sanctions screening, this absence is acceptable. The guidance is sufficiently explicit for an agent.

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