Get insider trading activity from SEC Form 4 filings. Shows when executives and directors buy or sell company stock — a key alpha signal for trading agents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | No | SEC CIK number | |
| limit | No | Number of trades | |
| ticker | No | Stock ticker symbol |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It transparently states the data source (SEC Form 4) and the actors (executives, directors), but does not disclose potential rate limits or data latency. Still adequate for a read-only tool.
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?
Two focused sentences: first states purpose and source, second adds value proposition. No extraneous text.
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?
No output schema, so description should hint at return fields (e.g., transaction type, shares, price). Missing this context. However, sibling tools are similar financial data tools, so overall context is reasonable.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides for 'cik', 'limit', and 'ticker'.
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?
Clearly states the tool retrieves insider trading activity from SEC Form 4 filings and identifies it as a key alpha signal. This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_earnings_data or get_fda_data.
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?
Implies use when insider trading data is needed, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to siblings. However, the context of sibling tools (earnings, FDA, filings) makes the tool's purpose clear.
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.
Most tools target distinct SEC-related data (earnings, insider trades, material events, filings), but get_material_events and get_recent_filings both handle 8-K filings, creating minor overlap. The FDA data tool is wholly unrelated, increasing potential confusion about the server's scope.
All tool names follow a consistent 'get_{category}_data' or 'get_{entity}' pattern (e.g., get_earnings_data, get_insider_trades). The verb_noun structure is uniform and predictable, aiding agent selection.
With 5 tools, the count is reasonable, but the inclusion of get_fda_data (FDA, not SEC) makes the set feel scattershot rather than focused. The server title 'SEC Filings & Earnings' suggests a narrower scope, so the tool count includes an outlier.
For SEC filings, the server covers key types: XBRL earnings, insider trades (Form 4), material events (8-K), and a general filings search. Missing structured 10-K/10-Q data and filing text retrieval are minor gaps. The FDA tool is an unrelated addition, not a gap.