Shibui Finance

Insider Transaction Workflow

load_insider_workflow

Read-onlyIdempotent

Load insider workflow for Form 3/4/5, insider buy/sell, cluster buy, 13D/G. REQUIRES get_database_schema then get_query_patterns to be called first (in that order). Call BEFORE writing SQL when the user asks about insider transactions, insider buying/selling, Form 3 initial holdings, Form 4/5 transactions, cluster buying, executive purchases, officer sales, 10b5-1 plans, activist stakes, 13D/G filings, beneficial ownership, "who is buying/selling", or "track this insider across companies". Can be combined with other workflow tools.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds behavioral context beyond that: the mandatory prerequisite calls ('get_database_schema then get_query_patterns... in that order') and the directive to call 'BEFORE writing SQL'. It also discloses that the tool can be combined with other workflow tools, giving a fuller picture of its behavior.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Despite the length, every sentence adds distinct value: purpose, prerequisites, trigger list, and combination note. The use of 'REQUIRES' and 'Call BEFORE' creates clear structural emphasis, and the information is front-loaded with the main purpose before diving into examples.

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?

The tool is simple (0 params) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It fully covers when to invoke, the required sequence of dependent calls, and composability, making it complete for an agent to choose and call this tool without additional guesses.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema has no fields to describe. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and its focus on purpose and usage effectively substitutes for parameter-level detail.

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 clear action ('Load insider workflow') and enumerates specific insider-related topics (Form 3/4/5, cluster buy, 13D/G), which distinguishes it from sibling workflow tools like load_filing_workflow or load_screening_workflow. The verb+resource pairing is specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance by listing numerous example user queries ('insider buying/selling', '10b5-1 plans', 'who is buying/selling') and a required call order ('REQUIRES get_database_schema then get_query_patterns'). It also mentions combinability with other workflow tools, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool.

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

All Shibui Finance tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct domains (backtesting, comparison, earnings, filings, fundamentals, insider, screening, technical), and descriptions provide specific trigger conditions. However, stock_data_query and export_to_excel are very similar (same query, different output), and some workflow boundaries overlap (e.g., earnings vs. fundamental both mention revenue trends; filing vs. insider both involve SEC documents).

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: get_database_schema and get_query_patterns follow verb_noun, the eight load_*_workflow tools follow verb_noun (consistent among themselves), but stock_data_query is a noun phrase with no verb, and export_to_excel includes a preposition. The mixed conventions are still readable but not uniform.

Tool Count4/5

At 12 tools, the count is within the expected 3-15 range and appropriate for the broad scope of comprehensive stock analysis. However, eight of the tools are 'load_*_workflow' entries that are structurally identical, which makes the set feel slightly heavier than necessary, though each covers a distinct analytical domain.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle of the domain: schema discovery, query guidance, raw query execution, export in a branded format, and eight specialized workflows covering backtesting, comparisons, earnings, filings, fundamentals, insider trading, screening, and technical analysis. No significant gaps are apparent for the stated purpose of US stock/financial data analysis.

Resources

Need Help?