Recent insider transactions for a company — who bought or sold, role, shares, and price. Insider activity is context, not a signal: executives sell for many reasons.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Transactions to include, newest first. Defaults to 20. | |
| ticker | Yes | Stock ticker (e.g. AAPL). Individual companies only. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds context about the data returned (recent, fields like buyer/seller role, shares, price) and an interpretative warning, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that convey purpose, contents, and a usage caveat without any fluff or repetition of schema details.
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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the returned data categories and advises on interpretation. It could mention sorting or the effect of the limit parameter, but these are already covered in the schema.
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 coverage is 100% with both 'ticker' and 'limit' described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level information, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 purpose: retrieving recent insider transactions for a company, including who bought/sold, role, shares, and price. It uses a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes this from other financial data tools (e.g., institutional holdings).
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 clear context for when to use this tool, specifically as background information rather than a trading signal, with the caveat that executives sell for many reasons. No explicit exclusions or alternative tools are named, but the guidance is reasonable.
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.
With 57 tools, most have distinct purposes (market data, journaling, watchlists). A few related tools (get_price_alignment vs get_crypto_price_alignment, get_market_pulse vs get_market_movers) could cause miselection, but descriptions clarify asset types and scope.
Tools predominantly use get_/list_/create_/update_/delete_ verbs with clear noun suffixes. Minor deviations like start_here, whoami, add_to_watchlist, and remove_from_watchlist break the pure verb_noun pattern, but the style is consistent and readable.
At 57 tools, the server is far beyond the well-scoped range. While the domain is broad, this many tools will overwhelm an agent's capability to select accurately, and many could be consolidated (e.g., separate financial statements).
The server covers watchlist CRUD, trading journaling, market data (fundamentals, statements, news, transcripts), analysis tools, and community features. No obvious dead ends; lifecycle coverage is thorough for the described domain.
