Search insider trading activity by company or symbol using the Search Insider Trades API. Find specific trades made by corporate insiders, including executives and directors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (default: 0) | |
| limit | No | Limit on number of results (default: 100, max: 100) | |
| symbol | No | Stock symbol | |
| companyCik | No | Company CIK number | |
| reportingCik | No | Reporting CIK number | |
| transactionType | No | Transaction type (e.g., S-Sale) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only says 'search' and 'find specific trades' without disclosing pagination behavior, response format, or whether filters are required/combine. All 6 params optional but no guidance on calling with no params.
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 sentences, front-loaded and readable, but 'using the Search Insider Trades API' is filler and second sentence adds minor elaboration.
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?
With 6 optional params, no output schema, and many sibling tools, description does not clarify result contents, pagination, or when to prefer this over searchInsiderTradesByReportingName/getLatestInsiderTrading. Minimal viable but incomplete.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage describing all six parameters; description adds only that search is by company or symbol, which maps loosely to symbol/companyCik but no extra syntax or combination semantics.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Search' with resource 'insider trading activity' and scopes by company or symbol. It distinguishes from sibling searchInsiderTradesByReportingName by indicating search dimension (company/symbol vs reporting name).
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?
Usage is implied: search by company or symbol. No explicit alternatives or exclusions; does not mention sibling searchInsiderTradesByReportingName for name-based searches.
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.