SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

Recent SEC Form 4 insider filings for one company CIK

finance_sec_form4

Read-only

Recent SEC Form 4 insider filings (officers, directors, 10% owners reporting trades) for one company CIK, from EDGAR's public submissions index. Lists filings with dates and links; transaction amounts are not parsed. Related tools on this server, for a different need: finance_sec_nport_mutual_fund_holdings when you need recent SEC NPORT-P filings for one fund-company CIK; finance_sec_form_d when you need latest SEC Form D filings from EDGAR's public search index. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "cik": "<cik>"
    },
    "name": "finance_sec_form4"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cik`	Yes	Company CIK (1 to 10 digits), e.g. 1318605 (Tesla)
`limit`	No	How many filings, 1 to 20 (default 10)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cik`	No
`count`	No
`source`	No
`company`	No
`filings`	No
`checkedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, it discloses the upstream source (EDGAR public submissions index), the shape of the result ('filings with dates and links'), and an explicit limitation ('transaction amounts are not parsed'), which prevents a common misuse. It also states the economic behavior: $0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc, with failed calls uncharged.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loads what the tool returns and its scope, then moves to alternatives and finally pricing — a sensible ordering. The pricing clause is dense with parenthetical detail but is justified information; the alternatives list is the only part that reads slightly like boilerplate.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, yet the description still flags that amounts are not parsed, which is the key expectation-setting fact. Source, scope, sibling routing, and cost are all present — nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (cik, limit) are already documented, and the default of 10 is in the schema. The description only reinforces the single-CIK scoping constraint and adds no format, syntax, or range detail beyond what the schema provides — the expected baseline.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: 'Recent SEC Form 4 insider filings ... for one company CIK, from EDGAR's public submissions index,' and clarifies who is covered (officers, directors, 10% owners). An agent can distinguish it from the NPORT-P and Form D siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Names two alternatives explicitly and gives the condition that selects each ('when you need recent SEC NPORT-P filings for one fund-company CIK', 'when you need latest SEC Form D filings'). It gives clear context but never states when this tool itself should be preferred over, say, a general holdings or filing search, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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

All SiteCheck Crypto & Finance tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?