arelle-mcp

xbrl_edgar_insider_trades

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch insider trading data from SEC Forms 3, 4, and 5 for any company. Get recent transactions with filer name, form type, and filing date by providing a CIK number.

Instructions

Get insider trading data from SEC Forms 3, 4, 5.

Returns recent insider transactions including the filer name, form type, and filing date.

Args: params: Company CIK and limit.

Returns: str: JSON with insider filing list.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "xbrl_edgar_insider_trades"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description adds useful but limited context: it specifies the source forms (3, 4, 5) and return fields (filer name, form type, filing date). However, it does not discuss pagination, rate limits, or the meaning of 'recent'.

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?

The description is concise with three short paragraphs, avoiding fluff. It front-loads purpose, then output details, then args/returns. Could be more structured but efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple 1-parameter tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: source, input (CIK, limit), and output fields. It does not clarify 'recent' or date ranges, but overall sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the top-level 'params' parameter, so the description must compensate. It states 'Args: params: Company CIK and limit' and describes output fields. This adds high-level meaning but does not detail the exact format or constraints already in the schema.

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?

The description clearly states 'Get insider trading data from SEC Forms 3, 4, 5' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like xbrl_edgar_company_info by focusing on insider trades.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as xbrl_edgar_search or xbrl_edgar_filing_index. No when-not-to-use or alternatives mentioned.

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

Deploy Server