feeds

insider_sells

SEC Form 4 open-market insider SELLS (public domain). Form-4 code S only. Read these with care: insiders sell for diversification, tax and pre-scheduled 10b5-1 plans, so a sale carries far less information than a purchase. Carries observed_at (when recorded here) and happened_at (transaction date on the filing). For acquisitions use insider_buys. Also carries Schedule 13D/13G stake DECREASES and exits below 5% (form=13D|13G, direction=sell versus the last filing seen); filter with form=4 for Form 4 only.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "insider_sells"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`form`	No	SEC form; omit for all
`paid`	No	true = request the pay-per-call (x402) quote or the live tier. Without a payment attached the call returns the x402 PaymentRequired object as an isError result; attach the signed payment at _meta["x402/payment"] (or the PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header) and retry. Omit for the free, delayed tier.
`since`	No	Only transactions on/after this YYYY-MM-DD
`ticker`	No
`tickers`	No	Comma-separated tickers (max 100)
`min_value`	No	Minimum transaction value in USD (Form 4 rows only carry a value)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 29, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / paid

Added value: +{
+  "description": "true = request the pay-per-call (x402) quote or the live tier. Without a payment attached the call returns the x402 PaymentRequired object as an isError result; attach the signed payment at _meta[\"x402/payment\"] (or the PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header) and retry. Omit for the free, delayed tier.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / tickers

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Comma-separated tickers (max 100)",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / form

Added value: +{
+  "description": "SEC form; omit for all",
+  "enum": [
+    "4",
+    "13D",
+    "13G"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / min_value / description

Previous value: -"Minimum transaction value in USD"New value: +"Minimum transaction value in USD (Form 4 rows only carry a value)"

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the observed_at/happened_at distinction, that 13D/13G rows are stake decreases measured 'versus the last filing seen', and the interpretive caveat that sells are weak signals. It stops short of return-shape, sorting, or pagination behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the resource and scope, then caveat, then routing, then the 13D/13G edge case — every sentence adds information. It is dense and long for one field, but nothing reads as padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a six-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what data comes back conceptually (Form 4 code S plus 13D/13G decreases) and the temporal fields. Return ordering/pagination and the free-vs-paid tier distinction are left to the schema, which is acceptable but leaves minor gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 83%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains the form=4 filter's significance and reframes the 13D/13G values as direction=sell stake decreases rather than plain transactions. It says nothing about ticker/tickers/since beyond their schema text.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (SEC Form 4 open-market insider SELLS, code S only) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling insider_buys. It also scopes in the non-obvious 13D/13G stake-decrease case, so an agent knows exactly which data set this returns.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Routing is explicit: 'For acquisitions use insider_buys' names the alternative and the condition that selects it, and 'filter with form=4 for Form 4 only' tells the agent how to narrow scope. It additionally warns when a sale is less informative (diversification, tax, 10b5-1), which is real usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All feeds tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?