Get insider/executive stock trades (SEC Form 4) for a company. Shows CEO, CFO, directors, and other officers buying or selling their own company's stock — a key signal for institutional investors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max trades to return | |
| ticker | Yes | Stock ticker symbol (e.g. 'AAPL') | |
| executive_cik | No | Filter by specific executive CIK (from list_insider_traders) |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention rate limits, data freshness, pagination behavior, or any side effects. As a read-only tool, it does not describe potential size limits or return structure beyond the schema.
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?
Two sentences with clear, front-loaded purpose. No superfluous text; every sentence adds value. Appropriate length for the tool's simplicity.
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?
With no output schema, the description should hint at return fields (e.g., dates, transaction types, volumes). It omits any mention of the data structure or output format. For a moderately complex tool (3 parameters, financial data), this leaves the agent uncertain about what to expect.
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?
All three parameters are documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal extra meaning. It mentions executive roles (CEO, CFO) but does not tie them to the `executive_cik` parameter or clarify the `limit` parameter's impact on results. The schema already does the heavy lifting.
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 retrieves insider trades (SEC Form 4) for a company, naming specific insider types (CEO, CFO, directors) and the signal value. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like `get_congress_trades` (different domain) and `list_insider_traders` (lists insiders, not trades).
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 implies usage when insider trade data is needed but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `list_insider_traders` (which lists insiders) or `get_congress_trades` (congressional trades). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions are stated.
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.