insider_tradesSEC Form 4 insider transactions by ticker or insider name; filter to buys or sells, minimum value, date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | buy | sell | |
| limit | No | Max rows, 1-25 (default 10) | |
| since | No | ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD); only rows on or after this date | |
| ticker | No | Ticker | |
| insider | No | Insider name (partial) | |
| min_value | No | Minimum total value USD |
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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds modest context by naming SEC Form 4 as the data source and listing filter dimensions, but it does not disclose defaults, pagination, or what the returned rows contain.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the core resource and then lists the relevant filters. There is no filler or redundant wording.
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 read-only lookup with no required parameters and full schema coverage, the description covers the main query keys and filter options. It does not state what happens when no ticker or insider is provided or describe the return schema, but the missing details are not critical for invoking the tool correctly.
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 all six parameters are already documented. The description roughly restates ticker, insider, type, min_value, and since but adds no deeper semantics beyond the schema; limit is not mentioned.
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 SEC Form 4 insider transactions as the resource and specifies lookup keys (ticker, insider name) and filters. It differentiates from siblings only implicitly through 'Form 4' and 'insider,' rather than explicitly naming alternatives.
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 implies a direct query/filter use case, which is helpful, but it does not explain when to prefer this tool over related siblings like congressional_trades, form_d_raises, or institutional_holders. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.