Get SEC Form 144 filings — notices of proposed sale of restricted/controlled securities by insiders. Filed before selling, these signal upcoming insider sales. Complements Form 4 (post-trade) with pre-trade intent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max notices to return | |
| ticker | No | Filter by stock ticker (e.g. 'AAPL') | |
| insider_cik | No | Filter by insider's CIK number |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions that filings are 'filed before selling' and signal 'upcoming insider sales,' providing basic behavioral context. However, it does not disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the response contains (e.g., full text or summary). The description is adequate but not fully transparent.
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 two sentences long, no redundant words, and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: first sentence defines the tool, second sentence contrasts with Form 4 and explains usage context.
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?
Given no output schema, the description could mention what the returned notices include (e.g., filing details, dates, amounts). However, it sufficiently explains the purpose and differentiation. It is mostly complete for a retrieval tool, but a brief note on response structure would enhance completeness.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds contextual meaning by framing parameters as filters for 'notices of proposed sale' and 'pre-trade intent,' but it does not add details beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It meets the baseline but does not exceed.
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 it gets SEC Form 144 filings, specifying the resource (Form 144) and the verb (Get). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_insider_trades' (Form 4) by noting that Form 144 is pre-trade intent, while Form 4 is post-trade. The purpose 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains that Form 144 signals upcoming insider sales and complements Form 4, giving clear context on when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools for similar data, though it implies differentiation from 'get_insider_trades'.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, and descriptions explicitly disambiguate similar pairs (e.g., get_congress_member vs get_congress_trades, get_crypto_holder vs get_crypto_holders). No two tools appear to do the same thing.
The dominant pattern is get_<noun>, with list_<noun> for enumerations. Minor deviations exist: a bare 'search' tool and the 'sec_' prefix on SEC filing tools break the uniform verb_noun style, but the pattern remains predictable.
At 24 tools, this is on the heavier side, but the server spans multiple financial data domains (SEC filings, stocks, insider trading, crypto, rates, economics), so each tool has a clear purpose. It is just below the 'too many' threshold.
The tool surface is remarkably complete for financial data retrieval: SEC filing lifecycle is covered (list -> index -> document), institutional ownership is available from both stock and institution perspectives, and insider/congress/crypto/economic data are all present. No obvious gaps or dead ends.