Search and filter recent European corporate insider transaction disclosures (director dealings / MAR Article 19).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max number of filings to return (default: 10, max: 50) | |
| country | No | Optional ISO-2 country code (e.g. DE, SE, FR, UK, CH, NO, IT, ES, NL, BE) | |
| min_value_eur | No | Minimum transaction value in EUR (e.g. 50000) | |
| transaction_type | No | Transaction type (default: buy) | buy |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose; it does not mention read-only nature, return format, pagination, or any limitations. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words.
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?
With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain what the response looks like, any constraints (e.g., date range implied by 'recent'), or how to interpret the results. This is inadequate for an agent to use the tool confidently.
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 the baseline is 3. The description adds domain context (insider transactions) that helps interpret parameters, but it doesn't detail parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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 the tool's function: searching and filtering recent European insider transaction disclosures, with specific domain context (director dealings, MAR Article 19). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_cluster_buys or lookup_insider, so it falls short of a 5.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There is no mention of scenarios, alternatives, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer from the name alone.
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.