Retrieve recent SEC Form 4 insider filings for a ticker or CIK, including filer role, transaction type, and open-market status. Use it to identify insider buying or selling activity with filing details and EDGAR links.
Recent Form 4 insider filings: who, role, activity, and transaction lines.
limit: 1-20 filings, newest first. P/S are open_market true; A/M/F are false.
| 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 provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it delivers meaningful behavioral detail: limit range (1-20), ordering (newest first), and the open_market semantics for P/S versus A/M/F transaction codes. This goes well beyond a simple 'get filings' statement. It does not cover response format, errors, or auth, but the disclosed traits are substantive for a read-only listing 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?
The description is three short lines with every sentence earning its place: the first line states the resource and content, the second defines the limit constraint, the third clarifies transaction-code behavior. It is front-loaded and contains zero filler. The size is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone. It covers what is returned, the key parameter constraint, and the meaning of the transaction-code values. The only notable gap is a concrete format example for ticker_or_cik, but for a simple two-parameter listing tool the description is largely complete.
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. It does add real semantics for 'limit' (1-20, newest first), but 'ticker_or_cik' is left entirely to inference from its name and the schema. The coverage is partial: one parameter is enriched, the other is not, which is neither a full compensation nor a total failure.
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 names a specific resource (Form 4 insider filings) and enumerates its content (who, role, activity, transaction lines), which is far more informative than a generic verb. This purpose is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which cover trading symbols, segment revenue, and BDC nonaccrual. No ambiguity remains about what this tool returns.
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?
The description implies the tool is the right choice for Form 4 insider filing data, and the sibling names are so unrelated that confusion is unlikely. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is adequate but entirely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.