quiver_insidersSEC insider (Form 4) transactions for — corporate insider buys/sells at a public company, with insider name, share count, and date. Example: quiver_insiders({ ticker: "AAPL", _apiKey: "your-key" })
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes | Stock ticker to look up insider transactions for, e.g. "AAPL" (required) | |
| _apiKey | Yes | Quiver Quantitative API key |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "_apiKey": "your-quiver-api-key",
+ "ticker": "AAPL"
+ },
+ {
+ "_apiKey": "your-quiver-api-key",
+ "ticker": "TSLA"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying the exact output fields (insider name, share count, date) and providing an example, which gives the agent additional context beyond annotations.
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 two sentences plus an example, with the purpose front-loaded. Every sentence is essential and there is no redundancy.
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?
For a tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what data is returned (insider name, share count, date) and includes an example, making it sufficient for an agent.
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 covers both parameters with full descriptions. The description's example usage adds practical context showing the required format for both ticker and _apiKey, which is valuable for an agent.
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 explicitly states it provides SEC insider (Form 4) transactions for a ticker, with specific fields like insider name, share count, and date. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like quiver_congress_trading or quiver_gov_contracts.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose and provides an example, but it does not offer guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it specify 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.