List executives/insiders who have recently traded their company stock. Filter by role (CEO only or all executives). Useful for finding notable insider buying/selling activity across the market.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| role | No | Filter by role (case-insensitive): CEO, executive/officer, or all | all |
| limit | No | ||
| search | No | Search by name or ticker |
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'recently traded' without defining recency, and does not mention pagination, rate limits, response format, or any restrictions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent invoking the tool.
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 brief, consisting of two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or verbose language.
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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should comprehensively explain what the tool returns, but it does not. It omits details like the fields in the response, how 'recently' is defined, and any pagination or sorting behavior. This leaves an agent uncertain about the tool's full capabilities.
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?
The schema already describes two of four parameters (role and search) with descriptions. The tool description adds only a minor clarification for role, stating 'CEO only or all executives', but fails to provide any additional meaning for the 'page' and 'limit' parameters, which lack schema descriptions. The description does not compensate for the 50% schema coverage gap.
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 executives/insiders who recently traded company stock, with a filter by role. This verb-resource combination is specific enough, though it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'get_insider_trades', which likely provides individual trade details.
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 mentions filtering by role and notes the tool is useful for finding notable insider activity, providing some context. However, it does not offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_insider_trades' or 'list_institutions', nor does it state when not to use it.
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.