Insider Trading

Insider 13d

insider_13d

Read-onlyIdempotent

SEC Schedule 13D and 13G beneficial-ownership filings naming a US-listed company: which fund or investor crossed 5% ownership, on what date, and a link to the filing. 13D signals activist intent, 13G passive. Answers who has accumulated a large stake in a company. Response field matched_by says whether the company was matched by ticker or by company name.

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "ticker": "SABS"
    },
    "name": "insider_13d"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`days`	No	Look back period in days (default: 365)
`limit`	No	Max filings to return (default: 10, max 200)
`ticker`	Yes	Stock ticker ("AAPL"), company name, or CIK

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cik`	No	SEC CIK the ticker resolved to (unpadded)
`period`	Yes	Look back period description
`ticker`	Yes	Stock ticker in uppercase
`filings`	Yes
`truncated`	No	True when more filings matched upstream than were returned; raise `limit` to see them
`matched_by`	No	How the company was matched: ticker, cik or company_name
`description`	Yes	Explanation of 13D vs 13G filing types
`company_name`	No	Canonical SEC registrant name
`total_13d_filings`	Yes	Number of Schedule 13D/G filings RETURNED in `filings` — always equals filings.length
`matched_13d_filings`	No	Number of Schedule 13D/G filings matching upstream for this company and window, which may exceed the number returned

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 15, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / matched_by

Added value: +{
+  "description": "How the company was matched: ticker, cik or company_name",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedSep 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety bar is pre-covered. The description adds domain semantics (13D = activist intent, 13G = passive) and discloses the response field matched_by indicating ticker vs name matching, which is behavior-relevant context beyond structured fields.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the 13D/13G semantics and matched_by note follow logically. The final sentence about matched_by is slightly appendix-like but still earns its place; no filler wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description needn't describe return fields, and the bulk of the tool's function is well explained. The remaining omission is minor — no explicit note on lookback behavior or volume, though those live in the schema.

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 all three parameters are already documented with defaults and limits. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond hinting the company can be named (ticker, name, or CIK) — appropriate baseline given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: SEC Schedule 13D and 13G beneficial-ownership filings for a US-listed company, and states the question it answers (who crossed 5%, when, link to filing). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like insider_trades and insider_8k.

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?

The description frames the use case well — 'Answers who has accumulated a large stake in a company' — and explains the 13D activist vs 13G passive distinction, which helps an agent decide relevance. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or exclusion, but the context is clear enough to route correctly.

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

All Insider Trading 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.