Form4API — SEC Insider Trading

get_company_peers

Read-only

Peer companies in the same SIC industry, ranked by recent Form 4 activity. Returns other tracked companies in the same industry as the given ticker, for "similar companies" links. Candidates share the company's 4-digit SIC code (matchLevel "sic4"); when too few of those have Form 4 filings in the last 12 months to fill limit, companies sharing only the 2-digit SIC prefix (matchLevel "sic2") are added. Active peers (at least one Form 4 filing dated in the trailing 12 months, filings12m) come first, sic4 before sic2, each tier ordered by filings12m descending then ticker ascending; peers with no filings in the window are appended last only if there is still room. The company itself is excluded, as are companies without a ticker or without a usable SIC code, and any other company holding the same ticker. When several companies hold the ticker, the one GET /v1/companies/{ticker} returns is used. basis is "sic4", "sic2" or "mixed" according to the match levels present in peers, and "none" when peers is empty (including when the company has no SIC code, which is 200 with an empty list, not 404). limit defaults to 10 and is clamped to 1-25. Returns 404 NOT_FOUND if the ticker isn't tracked. Not plan-gated. Results are cached for a few hours.

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": {
      "ticker": "<ticker>"
    },
    "name": "get_company_peers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Maximum number of peers to return. Defaults to 10, clamped to 1-25.
`ticker`	Yes	Company ticker symbol, case-insensitive (e.g. "AAPL").

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, the description discloses the two-tier match logic, exact sort order (active peers, sic4 before sic2, filings12m desc then ticker asc), exclusion rules (self, tickerless, no-SIC, duplicate-ticker companies), limit clamping to 1-25, 404 on unknown ticker, 200-with-empty-list when SIC is missing, non-plan-gated status, and a few-hour cache. This is unusually complete behavioral disclosure for a read tool.

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-loaded with purpose and use case, then tiering, then edge cases. Every sentence carries substantive information, though the single dense block on ranking and matchLevel fallback takes effort to parse and could be broken into shorter sentences or a list.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers return fields (peers, matchLevel, filings12m, basis), edge cases (missing SIC, unknown ticker, duplicate tickers), ordering, and caching. Nothing material an agent needs to call and interpret it is absent.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: `limit` is explained as a fill target that gates whether sic2 fallbacks and zero-filing peers are appended, and the ticker ambiguity rule (the company returned by GET /v1/companies/{ticker} wins) is not in the schema. `basis` and `filings12m` return fields are also explained even though no output schema exists.

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 opening sentence names the resource (peer companies in the same SIC industry) and the ranking criterion (recent Form 4 activity), and the second sentence frames the consumer use case ("similar companies" links). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_company_insiders or get_company_overview 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 Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by "for 'similar companies' links" rather than stated as a when-to-use rule, and no alternatives (e.g., get_company_insiders for a full insider list, research_company for a broader profile) are named or excluded. The description does give strong conditional guidance for its own internal behavior (sic4 then sic2 fallback), which helps but is not tool-selection guidance.

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

All Form4API — SEC 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.