list_insider_tradesCorporate insider buys and sells from SEC filings, newest first, each linked to the filing it came from.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many trades to return. | |
| since | No | ISO date; only records on or after it. | |
| cursor | No | next_cursor from a previous call. | |
| ticker | No | Restrict to one ticker, e.g. TSLA. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation covers safety, and the description adds behavioral context beyond that: 'newest first' and 'each linked to the filing it came from' communicate sort order and output linkage, providing useful details not captured in annotations.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys all essential information efficiently and earns its place.
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?
For a simple list tool with comprehensive schema and annotations, the description is complete enough. It explains the core functionality and key output details, though it doesn't elaborate on return structure or pagination, which are already covered by the schema via cursor description.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline despite no extra info.
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 lists corporate insider buys and sells from SEC filings, sorted newest first, with links to filings. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from siblings like list_congress_trades and other list tools.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need insider trades from SEC filings. It implicitly distinguishes from congress trades and other list tools, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.
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.
get_composite and get_consensus both return per-ticker consensus with dimension breakdowns, creating ambiguity; agents might call the wrong one. Other tools are clearly distinct, but this overlap requires extra care.
All tools follow a verb_noun pattern: get_ for single entities, list_ for collections, and rank/search/screen as action verbs. The pattern is consistent and predictable across the entire set.
15 tools is well-scoped for a market intelligence server, covering single-ticker queries, lists, discovery, and market-level signals without unnecessary bloat.
The surface covers core workflows: ticker resolution, consensus, evidence, trades, positioning, screening, and market signals. Minor gaps exist (e.g., historical consensus or direct ticker comparison), but they are not critical.