insidergraph

Search insider trades

get_insider_trades

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search normalized insider transactions from SEC Forms 3/4/5 (US public companies). Returns rows with pre-computed value_usd and a quote-ready summary string with the SEC filing link.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Max rows per page, default 50, cap 500.
`since`	No	Earliest transaction date, YYYY-MM-DD.
`until`	No	Latest transaction date, YYYY-MM-DD.
`cursor`	No	Opaque pagination token from the previous response's page.next_cursor; pass it back verbatim to fetch the next page.
`insider`	No	Substring match on the insider's name, e.g. "MUSK".
`tickers`	No	Ticker symbols to include, e.g. ["NVDA","AAPL"]. Empty = all issuers.
`txn_type`	No	buy (open-market/private purchase P), sell (S), grant (A), exercise (M/X), or gift (G). Omit for all.
`relationship`	No	Filter by insider role.
`min_value_usd`	No	Minimum transaction value in USD (shares x price).
`exclude_10b5_1`	No	Drop pre-scheduled 10b5-1 plan transactions; true (default) for signal-seeking, false for full audit.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about the data being normalized, the pre-computed value_usd, and the quote-ready summary with the SEC filing link, which are behavioral details beyond the annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and includes crucial output details. No wasted words.

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?

The tool has 10 parameters and no output schema. The description explains the core behavior and highlights key output fields, but it doesn't fully describe pagination or the interaction of filters. However, the parameter schema fills in these details, and the description gives enough context for an agent to understand what the tool returns.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all 10 parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, but it does mention output fields (value_usd, summary) which are not parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states it searches normalized insider transactions from SEC Forms 3/4/5, with a specific verb ('Search') and resource. It also notes the output includes value_usd and a quote-ready summary. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_stakes or get_planned_sales, though the scope is distinct enough.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides clear context about what it does, but does not give any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_stakes, get_planned_sales, or cluster_buys. There are no exclusions or preferred use cases stated.

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

All insidergraph tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: per-form search tools (get_insider_trades, get_material_events, get_planned_sales, get_stakes), cross-feed signals (cluster_buys, planned_vs_executed, trades_before_events), and support utilities (company_profile, describe_coverage, find_company, list_recent_filings). The only slight overlap is company_profile vs. get_insider_trades, but company_profile is explicitly an aggregator that routes to detailed tools, eliminating ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern, especially the get_* family (get_insider_trades, get_material_events, etc.). However, three tools deviate: company_profile (noun_noun), planned_vs_executed (phrase with 'vs'), and trades_before_events (noun_phrase). These are still readable and clearly named, but they break the otherwise consistent convention.

Tool Count5/5

11 tools is well-scoped for the domain of insider trading analytics. It provides a complete set of per-filing-type search tools, cross-feed signals, and support utilities without redundancy or bloat. The count is within the ideal 5-15 range and feels justified.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle of insider data: entity resolution (find_company), orientation (describe_coverage), all major SEC forms (3/4/5, 8-K, 144, 13D/13G) via dedicated search tools, and advanced cross-feed analytics (cluster_buys, planned_vs_executed, trades_before_events). No obvious gaps are apparent for the stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?