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 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that this is a listing operation, that results are 'recent,' and that output includes dates and links. However, it does not mention ordering, pagination, possible data delays, or how 'recent' is defined, which leaves some ambiguity for a tool with no annotation safety profile.
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?
Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The main action and resource are front-loaded, and the explanatory clause about who files these forms is useful context rather than redundancy.
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?
For a simple two-parameter list tool without an output schema, the description provides enough to select and invoke it: it defines the data type, scope, and return contents. It could be more complete by noting default limit behavior or clarifying 'recent,' but these are minor for this complexity level.
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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds only a light semantic cue that the query refers to 'a company,' reinforcing the schema's 'Ticker, name, or CIK.' This meets the baseline but adds little beyond 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 names a specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('insider ownership filings (Form 3/4/5)'), and clarifies the actor (officers, directors, 10% owners). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like recent_filings or filing_search, which cover broader filing categories.
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 purpose strongly implies when to use it: whenever insider ownership/transaction filings are needed. However, it never explicitly contrasts with alternatives such as filing_search or recent_filings, nor states when not to use this tool. The usage guidance is implied rather than stated.
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 maps to a clearly distinct SEC data need: company identity resolution, full-text filing search, XBRL financials, insider transaction filings, and recent filing lists. Even the two filing-related tools are sharply separated by global keyword search versus company-specific recent activity.
All names use lowercase snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: company_lookup and filing_search use object+action, while financials, insider_transactions, and recent_filings are noun phrases. The names are readable and descriptive, but there is no consistent verb_noun structure across the set.
Five tools is well-scoped for an SEC filings intelligence server, covering lookup, search, financials, insider activity, and recent filings without redundant surface. Each tool has a clear role and the count sits comfortably in the ideal range.
The main research workflow is covered: identify a company, search filings, pull financial facts, inspect insider filings, and list recent SEC submissions. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct tool for fetching a single filing's full text or parsed insider transaction details, but returned links and financial data cover most needs.