Skip to main content
Glama

SEC EDGAR Fundamentals

Screen Insider Transactions Across Every Issuer

screen_insider_transactions

Insider transactions from every issuer at once, filtered by date range, transaction code, direction, minimum stated value, the role the filer holds and Rule 10b5-1 status. Returns one row per transaction, which is the unit to ask for when the question is about trades rather than about the people making them: which open-market purchases were filed last week, which sales were not scheduled under a plan, which directors disposed of stock above a threshold, how much of a run of selling was an option exercise rather than a decision. Each row names its issuer and its owner CIK, so an interesting row can be followed into insider_profile. For one row per person with their totals already rolled up use screen_insiders; for a single company use issuer_insider_activity. Results are paged and the page ceiling is published in the response. A Form 4 is filed within two business days of its transaction and a Form 5 annually, so this screens filings rather than trades as they happen. See /.well-known/x402 for current pricing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
roleNoRestrict to filers the filing marks as a director, an officer (an executive, with their title), or a beneficial owner of more than ten percent of a class. One person can hold several of these at once. Omit to match every role.
codesNoTransaction codes to include, up to eight of them — for instance ['P'] for open-market purchases or ['P','S'] for open-market decisions in both directions. Omit to match every code. list_ownership_codes publishes the whole vocabulary with what each code actually means; filtering to codes other than S correctly yields no realized proceeds.
limitNoTransaction rows per page, newest first. Accepts 1 to 100; defaults to 50 when omitted. The ceiling cannot be raised by a parameter and is published in the response.
offsetNoRows to skip before this page, for paging through a result set. Accepts 0 to 5000; defaults to 0. Narrow the filters rather than paging deeper.
end_dateNoLatest transaction date to include, inclusive, as YYYY-MM-DD. Leave it out for an open-ended range running to the newest row in the corpus.
directionNoRestrict to acquisitions ('A') or disposals ('D'), read from the filing's own acquired/disposed flag and never derived from the transaction code. A code and a direction disagree routinely: an option exercise disposes of the derivative security while acquiring common stock. Omit to match both.
start_dateNoEarliest transaction date to include, inclusive, as YYYY-MM-DD. Matched against the date the transaction happened, not the date the filing arrived — the two differ by days on a Form 4 and by up to a year on a Form 5.
rule_10b5_1NoRule 10b5-1 status of the transaction: 'under_plan' for sales scheduled in advance under a written plan, 'not_under_plan' for those the filing states were not, and 'not_stated' for filings that say nothing at all — which is every filing before the 2022 amendments and is a different claim from 'not_under_plan'. Omit to apply no filter of any kind.
min_value_usdNoMinimum transacted value the filing itself stated, as a decimal string such as '250000' or '250000.50'. Rows the filing stated no per-share figure for are never matched by it: an absent figure is not zero, and a gift recorded without one would otherwise satisfy every threshold as a transaction that never happened.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses page limits, one-row-per-transaction granularity, that results are paged, that the page ceiling is published in the response, the Form 4/5 filing lag, and how to find pricing. It also notes rows link to insider_profile via issuer and owner CIK, giving the agent follow-up behavior.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-front-loaded with the core capability and output unit, followed by guidance, alternatives, pagination, and caveats. The example list is long but useful; all information earns its place, though a slightly tighter version could convey the same guidance more economically.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: row granularity, follow-up tool, pagination behavior, filing-delay caveat, and pricing location. It does not enumerate all response fields beyond issuer and owner CIK, but the examples and filter list make the row contents reasonably inferable.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter descriptions already explain each option in detail, so the description adds little param-specific semantic value beyond restating the filter categories at a high level. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description states a precise verb-resource pair: it screens insider transactions across every issuer and returns one row per transaction. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by clarifying the unit of analysis (transactions, not people) and gives a concrete list of filters. An agent can tell exactly what this tool offers without inspecting the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly says to use this when the question is about trades rather than about the people making them, and it names direct alternatives: screen_insiders for one row per person and issuer_insider_activity for a single company. It also warns that Form 4/5 timing means this screens filings rather than real-time trades, which helps avoid misuse.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct resource and action: company reference, financial statements, single-metric history, cross-company comparison, filing history, insider transactions, insider aggregation, and vocabulary lookup. Cross-references between insider tools make boundaries explicit and prevent misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are all snake_case and mostly follow predictable verb_noun conventions like get_*, list_*, and screen_*. A few noun-phrase names (company_profile, insider_profile, issuer_insider_activity) and adjective-noun names (latest_insider_filings) break the strict pattern, but the meaning remains clear.

Tool Count5/5

Twelve tools is well within the ideal range for a focused SEC EDGAR fundamentals server. Each tool covers a meaningful slice of either financial data or insider ownership data, and none feels redundant or unnecessary.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the core read-only workflows well: company identity, normalized financials, metric history, cross-company comparison, filing history, insider transactions, insider profiles, and vocabulary support. Minor gaps exist—no company search by name/CIK and no raw filing text retrieval—but common fundamental and insider questions can be answered without dead ends.

Resources