List recent insider ownership filings (Form 3/4/5) for a company — the filings officers, directors, and 10% owners submit when they buy or sell shares. Returns the filings with dates and links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return. | |
| query | Yes | Ticker, name, or CIK |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool lists filings and returns dates and links, which communicates a read-only behavior. However, it does not define 'recent', explain ordering, or note any limitations such as pagination or coverage.
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 two concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the return summary ('dates and links') is stated efficiently.
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?
The tool is simple with two well-documented parameters and no nested objects. The description explains the core return content, which partially compensates for the missing output schema. It would be slightly stronger if 'recent' were defined, but the tool is still callable without that detail.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%: both 'query' and 'limit' are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('insider ownership filings (Form 3/4/5)'), and identifies the filers. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like recent_filings by narrowing to insider buy/sell filings rather than all filings.
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 makes the intended use case clear, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of sibling tools such as recent_filings or filing_search. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of SEC filing intelligence: identity lookup, full-text search, financial data, insider filings, and recent filing lists. The only possible overlap is between insider_transactions and recent_filings filtered by form type, but the specialized purpose of insider_transactions is clearly conveyed.
Names are readable but follow mixed conventions: company_lookup and filing_search are noun-noun compounds, recent_filings is adjective-noun, and financials is a bare noun. There is no consistent verb_noun pattern, and the variation makes it harder to predict tool names.
Five tools is well-scoped for an SEC filings intelligence server. Each tool addresses a major need without redundancy, and the count is within the ideal range for an MCP server.
The set covers core workflows: company resolution, search, financials, insider transactions, and recent filing lists. Minor gaps exist, such as direct filing text retrieval or specific filing metadata lookup, but agents can still accomplish most tasks using links and form-type filters.