Skip to main content
Glama

insidergraph

by com.insidergraph
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Insider trades before bad news

trades_before_events
Read-onlyIdempotent

Cross-feed signal: for issuers that filed a material 8-K event, show SEC Form 4 insider transactions in the N days BEFORE the event - e.g. insider selling before a bankruptcy, restatement, or delisting. Joins two feeds through the shared entity graph; raw EDGAR cannot answer this in one query.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax rows, default 50, cap 500.
sinceNoEarliest event date, YYYY-MM-DD.
txn_typeNoInsider transaction filter: sell (default - selling before bad news), buy (open-market buy: code P, acquisition, not derivative, price above zero, not offset in the same filing by the same shares at the same price), or all.sell
item_codesNo8-K items to anchor on, e.g. ["1.03","4.02","3.01"]. Default: distress items 1.03, 2.06, 3.01, 4.02.
days_beforeNoLookback window before the event date, default 60.
min_value_usdNoMinimum insider transaction value in USD.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / txn_type / description
      Previous value: -"Insider transaction filter: sell (default - selling before bad news), buy, or all."New value: +"Insider transaction filter: sell (default - selling before bad news), buy (open-market buy: code P, acquisition, not derivative, price above zero, not offset in the same filing by the same shares at the same price), or all."
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / item_codes / default
      Added value: +[
+  "1.03",
+  "2.06",
+  "3.01",
+  "4.02"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / item_codes / items / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "1.01",
+  "1.02",
+  "1.03",
+  "1.04",
+  "1.05",
+  "2.01",
+  "2.02",
+  "2.03",
+  "2.04",
+  "2.05",
+  "2.06",
+  "3.01",
+  "3.02",
+  "3.03",
+  "4.01",
+  "4.02",
+  "5.01",
+  "5.02",
+  "5.03",
+  "5.04",
+  "5.05",
+  "5.06",
+  "5.07",
+  "5.08",
+  "6.01",
+  "6.02",
+  "6.03",
+  "6.04",
+  "6.05",
+  "7.01",
+  "8.01",
+  "9.01"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / txn_type / default
      Added value: +"sell"
  3. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / $schema
      Added value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / days_before / default
      Added value: +60
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / default
      Added value: +50
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds that it joins two feeds via a shared entity graph and that raw EDGAR cannot replicate it in one query, which is useful context, but it says nothing about return format, pagination, or rate limits.

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 core mechanism, followed by a concrete example and the differentiator. 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?

For a cross-feed join tool with read-only annotations and full schema coverage, the description conveys the concept and result type well. No output schema exists, and it does not describe the shape of returned rows, which is a minor gap for a join tool.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters including the txn_type logic and item-code defaults. The description only loosely maps 'N days BEFORE the event' to days_before and 'insider selling' to the default txn_type, adding little beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (show), resource (SEC Form 4 insider transactions), and scope (in the N days BEFORE an issuer's material 8-K event). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_insider_trades or get_material_events, which cover only one feed each.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a clear use context with concrete examples ('insider selling before a bankruptcy, restatement, or delisting') and notes raw EDGAR cannot answer this in one query, implying when the cross-feed join is warranted. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives to steer away from, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All insidergraph toolsInspect
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