Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

mcp

by io.github.quantustik
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

get_insider_pulse

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get SEC Form 4 insider-trading activity — per-ticker detail or S&P 500 screener.

Surfaces already-ingested Form 4 filings (the same Form 4 feed behind the
market model's `form4` stage) pre-chewed into analytical context so you
don't have to parse raw XBRL yourself: buyer role (officer / director /
10% owner), transaction size vs that SAME insider's own historical buy
pattern (`size_vs_own_median`, `is_unusually_large` when >=2x their own
median), and cluster-buy detection (`is_cluster` — 3+ distinct insiders
buying the same ticker within a 10-day window, historically the stronger
signal vs a single insider's trade). Every transaction links to its
source SEC filing via `accession_url` — verify anything before acting.

Two modes:
  - ticker set: per-ticker view — up to 40 most-recent Form 4 transactions
    over the trailing year plus `cluster_buy_active`.
  - ticker omitted: S&P 500 (top-100) screener — tickers with a cluster
    buy or an unusually-large buy in the last 30 days. An empty
    `results` list is a valid, honest answer; most weeks most tickers
    show nothing notable.

Read-only surfacing: this is information, not a recommendation.

Args:
    ticker: Optional. Stock ticker for the per-ticker view (e.g. "AAPL").
            Omit for the S&P 500 screener. Case-insensitive.

Returns per-ticker: ticker, transactions, cluster_buy_active, generated_at,
disclaimer. Screener: tickers_scanned, results, generated_at, disclaimer.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tickerNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: it discloses the data source (already-ingested Form 4 feed behind the market model's form4 stage), the derived signals, per-transaction accession_url links for verification, and a 'information, not a recommendation' disclaimer. That is rich behavioral disclosure well past the annotation baseline.

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 key statement leads, and the two-mode structure is clear and easy to scan. It is on the verbose side—several clauses explain the derived metrics—but each sentence carries real information rather than filler, so it earns most of its length.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description enumerates the return fields for both modes (ticker, transactions, cluster_buy_active, generated_at, disclaimer; and tickers_scanned, results...). Combined with the mode logic and data provenance, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With only one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates: it marks ticker as optional, gives an example ('AAPL'), states case-insensitivity, and explains the semantic consequence of omitting it (switches to the screener). Nothing about the parameter is left ambiguous.

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 verb and resource ('Get SEC Form 4 insider-trading activity') and immediately frames its two modes (per-ticker detail vs S&P 500 screener). An agent can tell exactly what this tool fetches without opening the schema, and the analytical enrichment (cluster-buy, size_vs_own_median) further pins down its distinct scope among the sibling filings/institutional tools.

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?

Gives explicit conditional usage for both modes ('ticker set: per-ticker view'; 'ticker omitted: S&P 500 screener') and even sets expectations that an empty results list is a valid answer. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives (e.g. get_institutional_activity) to route between, so it is clear context without full when-not/alternative guidance.

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

All mcp toolsInspect
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