finwire.pl - Polish financial data

Plan entering Poland with a business

plan_business_entry

Read-onlyIdempotent

One call for someone from abroad starting a business in Poland: every legal form with available yes/no and the reason for their residence status, yearly taxes and net income to the owner for each available form (dividend tax at the tax-treaty rate of the owner country), setup steps, residence and identity requirements, and the deadline calendar for the best option. Facts carry the act, article, link and verification date.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "owner_status": "<owner_status>",
      "yearly_revenue": "<yearly_revenue>"
    },
    "name": "plan_business_entry"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`lang`	No	Language of texts, default en.
`year`	No	Polish tax year; default the current one.
`employees`	No	People to employ, default 0.
`vat_payer`	No	Will be an active VAT payer (monthly).
`owner_status`	Yes	eu-eea: EU/EEA citizen; swiss: Swiss citizen; third-country-equal: non-EU national with permanent residence, EU long-term residence, a listed temporary residence permit, refugee or temporary protection status, Pole's Card or EU family member; third-country-other: other non-EU national (visa, visa-free, residence permit for running a business); foreign-company-eu-eea / foreign-company-other: a company seated abroad.
`yearly_costs`	No	Expected yearly business costs, PLN net.
`lump_sum_rate`	No	Ryczałt rate for the activity in percent, default 12.
`owner_country`	No	Tax residence of the owner, ISO2 (e.g. DE, US); omit if Polish resident.
`yearly_revenue`	Yes	Expected yearly net revenue without VAT, PLN.

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 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: it discloses that net income is computed with dividend tax at the owner country's treaty rate, and that each fact carries the act, article, link and verification date — useful provenance for trusting the output. It does not cover computation assumptions beyond dividend tax, scope limits, or latency/cost.

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?

It is a single dense sentence, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose and every clause enumerates a concrete output element rather than padding. Slightly heavy for one sentence, yet no wording is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present and full schema coverage, the description need not document return shape or parameter formats, and it goes further by sketching what comes back. For a nine-parameter planning tool it is adequately complete, with only the sibling routing left implicit.

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 nine parameters including the owner_status enum semantics and defaults, making 3 the baseline. The description contributes only indirectly, tying the treaty-rate dividend tax to owner_country and framing results around residence status; it adds no new meaning about the other parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource and audience — legal forms, taxes, net income, setup steps, residence requirements and a deadline calendar for an owner from abroad starting a business in Poland. The phrase 'One call for...' implicitly signals it bundles what siblings like compare_business_forms and get_compliance_calendar would otherwise require, but no sibling is named explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the target audience ('someone from abroad starting a business in Poland'), which is a reasonable selection cue. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no pointer to the narrower calculation or comparison tools for follow-up, leaving routing to inference.

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.