Skip to main content
Glama

Sirenic

by eu.sirenic

Verify IBAN and bank (SEPA)

verify_iban_bank
Read-only

IBAN verification and bank validation for SEPA — use when you are about to pay a NEW or CHANGED IBAN, or when onboarding a supplier's bank details, and want the cheapest check of the supplier before payment. Runs a FORM check on the IBAN (ISO 13616 structure + mod-97 key), identifies the bank from FREE official registers (France: name+LEI+SIREN via ACPR/REGAFI; Belgium, Austria, Netherlands: name+BIC; Germany when the Bundesbank file is loaded, incl. LEI where available; French banks get their BIC via the GLEIF/SWIFT BIC-to-LEI mapping). Explicitly NOT a payee verification — the account holder's name is never checked and the account's existence is not tested (verification_titulaire: non_disponible): a well-formed IBAN at an identified bank is no proof that the account belongs to your supplier. The answer says this in machine-readable form next to valide: nature_du_controle (forme | forme_et_registres), non_verifie [account existence, holder name] and exemple_de_documentation — true for IBANs on a published list of known documentation samples, which pass every check; the account's existence is not tested; false is not proof of the contrary. The response is Ed25519-signed and carries provenance[] — one entry per block served, naming the official register actually consulted, its licence and its as_of date. For the full invoicing verdict on a French counterparty, call prepare_french_invoice_file instead. Paid via x402 ($0.005 in USDC or EURC).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ibanYesIBAN of the account to check, any ISO 13616 country (spaces and dashes tolerated); bank identification is limited to the registers listed in the tool description
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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even though readOnlyHint and openWorldHint are already set, the description adds substantial behavioral context: what checks are performed, what is never checked (holder name, account existence), the machine-readable verification fields, Ed25519 signing, provenance[], and the x402 payment requirement. It does not contradict the 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 long, but it earns its length: purpose is front-loaded, followed by critical limitations, response semantics, alternative routing, and payment details. There is no filler; every sentence carries actionable information.

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 an output schema and annotations, the description is unusually complete: it covers when to use it, what it does not do, how payment works, authentication via api_key, response signature and provenance, and the alternative for French invoicing. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke it 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 fully documents iban, api_key, and x_payment. The description adds useful global context about payment cost and register limitations, but it does not significantly enrich parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'IBAN verification and bank validation for SEPA'. It clearly distinguishes itself by emphasizing what it is NOT (payee verification) and by naming its closest alternative, prepare_french_invoice_file, so an agent can differentiate it from the many validation siblings.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool: 'when you are about to pay a NEW or CHANGED IBAN, or when onboarding a supplier's bank details'. It also gives explicit exclusions: it is not a payee verification, and for the full invoicing verdict on a French counterparty the agent should call prepare_french_invoice_file instead.

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