Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

TradeStar Insider

by com.tradestarinsider
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Fact-check an insider-buying claim against SEC Form 4

verify_insider_purchase
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use when the user wants to verify a claim that an insider bought a stock, or to pull the purchases in one filing by accession. Pass the claim (ticker/issuer, person, amount, timeframe), or accession alone for that filing's gated purchase records. Returns confirmed, not_found, partial, out_of_scope (sales/options/grants), or out_of_coverage. Each matched filing carries transaction_date, acceptance_datetime, aff10b5One (10b5-1 flag), is_amendment/original_accession (4/A linkage), and partial_fields (reason for any null). Caveat: filing-verified — absence is reported, not guessed.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endNoWindow end (ISO) if the claim is a range
dateNoClaimed date, ISO YYYY-MM-DD (matched ±3 filing days)
startNoWindow start (ISO) if the claim is a range
personNoInsider name in any order, e.g. 'Alfonso de Angoitia'
sharesNoClaimed share count
tickerNoIssuer ticker (case-insensitive), e.g. CAVA
txn_typeNoOptional; only code P purchases are covered — sale/option/grant returns out_of_scope
accessionNoSEC filing accession, e.g. 0001493152-26-040454. If you already have the exact filing, pass this to pull its gated purchase records directly — it is used alone and ignores the claim fields above.
amount_usdNoClaimed purchase value in USD (matched ±5% or ±$1)
issuer_nameNoIssuer/company name (use if you don't have the ticker)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / txn_type / description
      Previous value: -"Optional; only open-market buys are covered — sale/option/grant returns out_of_scope"New value: +"Optional; only code P purchases are covered — sale/option/grant returns out_of_scope"
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / accession
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "SEC filing accession, e.g. 0001493152-26-040454. If you already have the exact filing, pass this to pull its gated purchase records directly — it is used alone and ignores the claim fields above.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, and the description adds genuine behavior beyond that: the full status vocabulary (confirmed/not_found/partial/out_of_scope/out_of_coverage), the per-filing fields returned, and the key epistemic caveat that absence is reported rather than guessed.

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?

Two dense sentences, with the trigger condition correctly front-loaded before the return-value detail. Slightly packed with status/field enumerations, but nothing is redundant or wasteful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description fully carries the burden of explaining return statuses and per-filing fields, and it does so alongside the coverage caveat. An agent can call this correctly and interpret the response without further documentation.

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 every parameter, including the ±3 filing-day and ±5%/±$1 matching tolerances and the accession-alone override, is already documented in the schema. The description restates the claim-vs-accession split and the P-code-only scope but adds little syntax or meaning not already present.

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 (verify/fact-check) and resource (an insider-buying claim against SEC Form 4), plus a second mode (pull purchases by accession). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like insider_buys and insider_cluster_buys, which list rather than adjudicate claims.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('Use when the user wants to verify a claim...') and describes the alternate accession-only path. It doesn't explicitly name which sibling to reach for when the user merely wants a list of buys (insider_buys), so routing against alternatives is implied rather than spelled out.

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

All TradeStar Insider 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