insider_tradesA company's latest Form 4 filings parsed into data: who traded, their role, buy or sell, shares, price, and holdings after. The free EDGAR servers list Form 4s; this one reads them. Every filing pinned by accession number. Costs $0.05 per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Form 4 filings to parse. Default 5. | |
| company | Yes | Ticker symbol (e.g. AAPL) or SEC CIK number (e.g. 320193). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint (no mutation), so the description adds value by disclosing a per-call cost ($0.05) and noting that data is sourced from free EDGAR servers, with each filing identified by accession number. These details go beyond the annotations and help set expectations, though it doesn't mention rate limits or auth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by source context and a technical detail. It is concise, efficient, and well-structured, covering essentials without fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
It covers the core functionality, data source (EDGAR), a unique detail (accession number pinning), and cost. It doesn't explicitly mention output schema or limitations, but given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema (not shown), it is adequately complete. It could benefit from mentioning when not to use it (e.g., for historical filings), but that's not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema shows company (required) and limit (optional), but the description clarifies that 'company' refers to the subject of the Form 4 filings. It doesn't explain the 'limit' parameter beyond the schema's type/default, but it does mention 'latest' implying a default scope. The description lists output fields, which is not parameter semantics, so it adds limited value over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: parsing a company's latest Form 4 filings into structured data (who traded, role, buy/sell, shares, price, holdings). It specifies the resource (Form 4) and the action (parsed), and it stands apart from sibling tools like institutional_holdings or latest_filings by focusing on insider trades derived from Form 4.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives context (
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly written descriptions, but several pairs overlap semantically: token_price/token_report, latest_filings/recent_filings, and institutional_holdings/who_holds/activist_stakes all require careful reading to pick the right one. The overlap is not severe enough for a 2, but it is still more than the occasional confusion.
Names are consistently snake_case and mostly descriptive, but the set does not follow one naming convention. It mixes noun phrases (crop_data, token_report, insider_trades) with verb phrases (lookup_company, compare_filings, verify_financial_claim), and pairs like latest_filings/recent_filings create avoidable confusion.
31 tools is too many for what is nominally an SEC Filings server, and the scope sprawls into unrelated domains such as EVM gas, tokens, prediction markets, crop data, and x402 auditing. The count does not feel earned by a coherent workflow; it feels like an uncurated bundle of endpoints.
The SEC filing workflow is reasonably covered: company lookup, search, latest/recent filings, section extraction, 8-K events, comparisons, ownership filings, and XBRL financial checks are all present. However, there is no full-filing retrieval endpoint, no deep company financial history beyond a single concept, and many non-SEC subdomains are only one-off data points, so the overall surface is still incomplete.