Retrieve recent SEC Form 4 insider filings for any ticker or CIK, showing filer role, activity, and transaction lines with accession numbers and EDGAR index URLs.
Recent Form 4 insider filings: who, role, activity, and transaction lines.
limit: 1-20 filings, newest first. P/S are open market; A/M/F are not.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| ticker_or_cik | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add useful behavioral context: 'newest first', the 1-20 limit, and the meaning of P/S versus A/M/F transaction codes. However, it does not explicitly declare that the operation is read-only, describe the output shape, or mention error/empty-response behavior.
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 compact sentences, each earning their place: the first establishes the resource and content, the second gives operational constraints and a transaction-code legend. There is no filler and the key identity is front-loaded.
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?
For a two-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core invocation facts and adds useful behavioral notes. Yet it leaves an agent guessing about exact returned fields, empty results, and error behavior, and it never connects the tool to its siblings for selection purposes.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It clarifies limit semantics with the 1-20 range and ordering, but ticker_or_cik is only named with no example, format guidance, or validation details, leaving the compensation incomplete.
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?
The description clearly identifies the resource as 'Recent Form 4 insider filings' and lists the content areas returned (who, role, activity, transaction lines), making it easy to distinguish from the sibling tools. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns', reading as a headline rather than a complete action statement.
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?
No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus get_trading_symbols or get_segment_revenue. The description provides the limit constraint and ordering but no context about prerequisites, ticker/CIK format, or typical use cases, so an agent receives no selection help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.