finwire.pl - Polish financial data

Check a firm on the KNF warnings list

check_knf_warnings

Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up a company, investment platform or website on the public warnings list of the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) by name, website domain, KRS, NIP or REGON. Returns matching entries verbatim from KNF (entity, identifiers, legal basis, prosecutor, final rulings, important information). An entry is a notification of a suspected offence, not a conviction; no match does NOT mean the firm is licensed or safe. Without query: list size, entries by legal basis, entries new this week and the weekly series finwire_knf_warnings_monitor.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "check_knf_warnings"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Entries to return, default 10.
`query`	No	Firm name (min. 3 characters), website (e.g. "tradereu.com") or KRS/NIP/REGON number.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes
`asOf`	No
`data`	No
`title`	Yes
`source`	Yes
`docsUrl`	Yes
`license`	Yes
`summary`	Yes
`citation`	Yes
`datasetId`	Yes
`sourceUrl`	No
`truncated`	No
`serverDate`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses that entries are returned verbatim with specific fields, and critically warns that an entry is a notification of a suspected offence rather than a conviction and that no match does not imply licensing or safety. That interpretive caveat is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the return shape, then the interpretation caveat, then the no-query behavior — a logical order with no filler. Every clause, including the field enumeration and the named monitor series, carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description still sketches the returned fields and, more importantly, supplies the semantic caveat needed to interpret a hit or miss correctly. For a two-parameter lookup tool this leaves no meaningful gap for an agent to call 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 both parameters are already documented, including the 3-character minimum and domain example. The description restates the accepted identifier types but adds no format guidance for `limit` and no detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb (look up) plus the resource (public KNF warnings list) and enumerates the exact lookup keys (name, website domain, KRS, NIP, REGON). No sibling tool touches this domain, and the description makes the scope unmistakable versus the macro/rates/legal siblings.

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?

Explicitly splits the two invocation modes: with a query it is a lookup, and "Without query" it returns an aggregate overview (list size, entries by legal basis, new-this-week, monitor series). No alternatives exist among siblings, so nothing needs to be excluded, but it stops short of stating prerequisites or when this is preferable to another check.

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

All finwire.pl - Polish financial data tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.