Unstuck

Insider Trades (Form 4)

insider_trades

Read-onlyIdempotent

Recent insider buying and selling at a US public company, by stock ticker or CIK: who traded (director, officer, 10% owner), transaction date, buy/sell/grant code with its plain meaning, shares, price, and shares held after, parsed from Form 4 filings. An option or RSU that vests shows as two rows in the same filing: the derivative given up and the common stock received. Data source: SEC EDGAR public filings (free public data; not affiliated with or endorsed by the SEC). Price: $0.03 per successful call; failed calls are free.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "ticker_or_cik": "<ticker_or_cik>"
    },
    "name": "insider_trades"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	How many recent Form 4 filings to read, newest first. Default 10, max 20.
`api_key`	No	Your Unstuck API key, if this connection has none. Leave empty to try free tools or to get a key and payment link.
`ticker_or_cik`	Yes	Stock ticker (e.g. "AAPL", "BRK.B") or the company's numeric SEC CIK (e.g. "320193").

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cik`	Yes
`source`	Yes
`company`	Yes
`filings`	Yes
`balance_usd`	Yes	Remaining prepaid balance, USD.
`charged_usd`	Yes	Amount charged for this call, USD.
`skipped_filings`	Yes	Form 4 filings that could not be read and were left out.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 4, 2026
RemovedOct 4, 2026
AddedOct 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, but the description adds real value beyond them: the data provenance (SEC EDGAR, unaffiliated), a per-call cost model ($0.03 per successful call, failed calls free), and the edge case that an option/RSU vest produces two rows in one filing. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficient supporting sentences on the vesting edge case, data source, and pricing. Dense but each sentence carries distinct, useful information; only minor trimming would help.

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 an output schema and rich annotations already present, the description still fills the remaining gaps: provenance, cost model, and the two-row vesting behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret the call correctly is missing.

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%, so ticker_or_cik, limit, and api_key are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, 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+resource (recent insider buying and selling at a US public company), names the identifying key (ticker or CIK), and enumerates the exact fields returned. This clearly distinguishes it from the generic sibling company_filings.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description makes the use case (insider Form 4 activity) clear, but never names an alternative or states when NOT to use it. It does not route the agent to company_filings for broader filing needs, leaving comparison to inference.

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

All Unstuck tools Inspect

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

Need Help?