Recent Form 4/3/5 insider transactions with insider-cluster detection (multiple insiders filing on the same issuer). Optionally filter by ticker/CIK.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | No | ||
| days | No | ||
| ticker | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions 'recent' and 'insider-cluster detection', providing some behavioral traits, but with no annotations, it lacks details on data freshness, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only (assumed but not stated).
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 a single concise sentence that conveys the tool's core purpose and optional filters, with no wasted words or redundant content.
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?
While it covers purpose and key filters, it omits explanation of the 'days' parameter and does not describe output format or behavior when no filters are applied, leaving some gaps for a tool with no output schema.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by naming ticker and CIK as optional filters, but fails to mention the 'days' parameter, leaving its purpose and default unclear.
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 states it returns recent Form 4/3/5 insider transactions with insider-cluster detection, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_filings or company_watch which handle broader filings or company data.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_filings for non-insider filings). It only mentions optional filters but does not specify prerequisites or contexts where this tool is preferred.
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 filings research: company_watch for a company overview, filing_digest for recent summaries, insider_activity for insider transactions, search_filings for ad-hoc full-text search, and whats_new_since for incremental updates. No ambiguity between them.
All tool names use descriptive snake_case with a clear verb_noun or noun_verb pattern (e.g., company_watch, insider_activity, search_filings). The naming style is consistent and intuitive.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its domain of SEC EDGAR data access. Each tool serves a clear purpose without unnecessary overlap, and the count is appropriate for the feature set.
The tool set covers key use cases: company monitoring, insider activity, full-text search, and incremental updates. Minor gaps could include direct retrieval of a single filing by accession number or more granular filtering, but the core workflows are complete.