US small caps where SEVERAL DISTINCT company insiders each bought their own stock on the open market in the last 30 days, ranked by number of buyers then dollar value. Source: SEC Form 4, open-market purchases only — grants and option exercises are excluded. Scanned over a $300M-$2.5B market-cap band, not the whole market.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only provide readOnlyHint: true, and the description adds no further behavioral details such as data freshness, latency, or error conditions. The description focuses entirely on the query scope, not on runtime behavior or side effects.
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 concise—two sentences—and front-loads the core purpose. It groups related filters (source, exclusions, market-cap band) without redundant wording, making it easy to parse.
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?
Given the simple tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers the input and output context: it specifies the universe (US small caps), the criteria (multiple distinct insiders, open-market buys, last 30 days), ranking logic, and source. No additional context is needed.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is complete. The description provides no additional parameter-related meaning, but this is acceptable given the absence of parameters. Baseline score 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 tool's function: it identifies US small-cap stocks with multiple distinct insiders buying on the open market in the last 30 days, ranked by buyer count and dollar value. This distinguishes it from sibling scan tools like buyback_leaders or unusual_options, which target different signals.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for insider sentiment for large caps or for other insider actions). While the purpose is self-evident, no direct guidance on applicability or exclusions beyond the market-cap band is provided.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct data source or analytical angle: buybacks, congress trades, DCA fit, insider buying, 13F filings, price levels, risk phrases, and options volume. There is no overlap in purpose or output, so an agent can unambiguously select the right tool.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase_with_underscore noun-phrase pattern (e.g., buyback_leaders, risk_filings). The naming is uniform and descriptive, making it easy to predict what each tool does based on the name alone.
The server has 8 tools, squarely in the well-scoped range. Each tool represents a meaningful, non-redundant screen or data source, and none feels like filler or duplicative functionality.
For a market-aware server, the coverage is strong: it spans corporate actions (buybacks), insider activity, institutional holdings, technical levels, risk signals, and options flow. Minor gaps exist—no general price/quote tool or earnings-focused screen—but the set is coherent and covers diverse data sources without major dead ends.