Insider Trading

Insider 8k

insider_8k

Read-onlyIdempotent

SEC Form 8-K material event filings for a US-listed company, with the 8-K item codes decoded (earnings release, acquisition completed, officer departure, material agreement, delisting notice…). Answers what significant corporate events a company has disclosed and when. 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": "AAPL"
    },
    "name": "insider_8k"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`days`	No	Look back period in days (default: 180)
`limit`	No	Max filings to return (default: 15, 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
`company_name`	No	Canonical SEC registrant name
`total_8k_filings`	Yes	Number of 8-K filings RETURNED in `filings` — always equals filings.length
`matched_8k_filings`	No	Number of 8-K 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

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description doesn't need to restate them. It does add real behavioral context beyond the annotations: item codes are decoded rather than returned raw, and the response carries a matched_by field indicating ticker-vs-name resolution. What's missing is any note on coverage limits (e.g., only US-listed issuers, filing recency) or rate/pagination behavior.

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?

The definition is front-loaded: what the filings are, what the item codes decode to, and what question it answers all arrive in the first two sentences. The parenthetical item-code list earns its place by showing the decoding depth, though the closing matched_by sentence is a minor detail that could be trimmed given the output schema already exposes it.

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?

For a three-parameter, read-only lookup with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, decoding behavior, and the natural-language question it serves. The remaining gap is sibling differentiation within the insider_* family, which matters for an agent choosing among filing types.

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 (days, limit, ticker) are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds only the matched-by-ticker-or-name detail, which the ticker schema field already covers, so it does not meaningfully extend parameter understanding beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource and verb ('SEC Form 8-K material event filings'), enumerates the decoded item codes, and states the question it answers ('what significant corporate events a company has disclosed and when'). It is clear on its own, but it never contrasts itself with the sibling insider_13d or insider_trades, even though the 'insider_' prefix invites confusion about which filing type to pick.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrasing 'Answers what significant corporate events a company has disclosed and when' implies the use case, so the intended question is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, no mention of the other filing tools (13D, insider trades), and no guidance on when a longer lookback than the default 180 days is warranted versus pulling trades or ownership filings instead.

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.