Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

FinancialMD

by md.financial
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Insider transactions

insider_transactions
Read-onlyIdempotent

List the transactions a company's officers, directors and ten percent owners reported on SEC Forms 3, 4 and 5, newest first: transaction date, the owner and their relationship and title, the security, the SEC transaction code as filed (P purchase, S sale, A grant, M exercise, F tax withholding, G gift), acquired or disposed, shares, price and shares owned after. Every number carries a proof that opens the ownership form on sec.gov. as_of limits the list to forms accepted by a date; cursor pages. Use it when asked what a company's insiders bought or sold.

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": {
      "limit": 20,
      "company": "ticker:AAPL"
    },
    "name": "insider_transactions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
as_ofNoKnowledge date or timestamp (YYYY-MM-DD or RFC 3339). The answer is what FinancialMD knew at that instant: only facts whose known interval contains as_of. Omit for the current view.
limitNoMaximum number of periods or items to return (default 50, at most 500).
cursorNoOpaque cursor from a previous page (data.next_cursor).
companyYesCompany identifier: a FinancialMD id ("fmd_01H..."), an SEC CIK ("cik:320193"), or a ticker ("ticker:AAPL", optionally with the MIC "ticker:AAPL.XNAS"). A bare ticker like "AAPL" is accepted and sent as ticker:AAPL. An issuer on an EU or UK regulated market that does not file with the SEC has no CIK: pass its LEI ("lei:IOG4E947OATN0KJYSD45") or its fmd_ id.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo{ items: [{ transaction_date, owner: { cik, name }, relationship, officer_title, security_title, is_derivative, code, acquired_disposed, ownership_nature, shares, price, shares_owned_after }], next_cursor }; shares, price and shares_owned_after are value objects.
metaNoRequest metadata: request_id, as_of, company resolution, coverage, pipeline_version, licence, terms, proof_base.
errorNoPresent only on isError results: the API error code and message plus remedy hints.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / company / description
      Previous value: -"Company identifier: a FinancialMD id (\"fmd_01H...\"), an SEC CIK (\"cik:320193\"), or a ticker (\"ticker:AAPL\", optionally with the MIC \"ticker:AAPL.XNAS\"). A bare ticker like \"AAPL\" is accepted and sent as ticker:AAPL."New value: +"Company identifier: a FinancialMD id (\"fmd_01H...\"), an SEC CIK (\"cik:320193\"), or a ticker (\"ticker:AAPL\", optionally with the MIC \"ticker:AAPL.XNAS\"). A bare ticker like \"AAPL\" is accepted and sent as ticker:AAPL. An issuer on an EU or UK regulated market that does not file with the SEC has no CIK: pass its LEI (\"lei:IOG4E947OATN0KJYSD45\") or its fmd_ id."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add context, which it does: source provenance (SEC Forms 3/4/5), newest-first ordering, per-number proof links to sec.gov, and point-in-time semantics for as_of. It stops short of describing pagination limits or total-count behavior beyond "cursor pages."

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 the core answer and then the field inventory, with usage guidance last. The long parenthetical enumerating SEC codes (P, S, A, M, F, G) is dense but genuinely informative; the field list could be trimmed since an output schema exists.

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 four-parameter, read-only listing tool with a full output schema and strong annotations, the description covers source, ordering, field meanings, code legend, provenance links, and time-travel semantics. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly, including formats and examples. The description adds only a light gloss on as_of ("forms accepted by a date") and cursor ("cursor pages"); it adds no identifier syntax detail for company. Baseline 3 applies when 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("List the transactions a company's officers, directors and ten percent owners reported on SEC Forms 3, 4 and 5") and pins down scope, ordering, and the exact fields returned. An agent can distinguish this from insider_holders (who holds) versus this tool (what was traded) from the description alone.

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?

Closes with a concrete trigger: "Use it when asked what a company's insiders bought or sold," and explains that as_of restricts to forms accepted by a date. It gives clear positive guidance but names no explicit exclusion or alternative sibling, which keeps it off a 5.

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

All FinancialMD 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