Skip to main content
Glama
TradestarV5

TradeStar Insider

by TradestarV5
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Fact-check an insider-buying claim against SEC Form 4

verify_insider_purchase
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fact-check claims that an insider bought a stock against SEC filings, or pull purchase records from one filing by accession. Returns confirmed, partial, not found, out of scope/coverage.

Instructions

Use when the user wants to verify or fact-check a claim that an insider bought a stock, or to pull the purchases in one filing by accession. Pass the claim (ticker/issuer, person, amount, timeframe), or pass accession alone to fetch that filing's gated purchase records. Returns confirmed (with source filing + link), not_found, partial (itemised claimed-vs-filed), out_of_scope (sales/options/grants), or out_of_coverage. Caveat: filing-verified — absence is reported as absence, never estimated or guessed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endNoWindow end (ISO) if the claim is a range
dateNoClaimed date, ISO YYYY-MM-DD (matched ±3 filing days)
startNoWindow start (ISO) if the claim is a range
personNoInsider name in any order, e.g. 'Alfonso de Angoitia'
sharesNoClaimed share count
tickerNoIssuer ticker (case-insensitive), e.g. CAVA
txn_typeNoOptional; only open-market buys are covered — sale/option/grant returns out_of_scope
accessionNoSEC filing accession, e.g. 0001493152-26-040454. If you already have the exact filing, pass this to pull its gated purchase records directly — it is used alone and ignores the claim fields above.
amount_usdNoClaimed purchase value in USD (matched ±5% or ±$1)
issuer_nameNoIssuer/company name (use if you don't have the ticker)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / accession
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "SEC filing accession, e.g. 0001493152-26-040454. If you already have the exact filing, pass this to pull its gated purchase records directly — it is used alone and ignores the claim fields above.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes further by enumerating the return statuses (confirmed/not_found/partial/out_of_scope/out_of_coverage) and stating the epistemic caveat that absence is reported as absence, never estimated. That is real behavior disclosure beyond structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition, then the two invocation modes, then the return vocabulary and caveat. Dense but each sentence carries information; the long parenthetical status list is slightly heavy but justified given no output schema.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates result statuses and the coverage limitation, and covers both invocation modes for a 10-param, zero-required tool. An agent has enough to call it correctly without further guessing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including matching tolerances (±3 filing days, ±5%). The description groups the claim fields conceptually and repeats the accession-alone semantics, adding only marginal meaning beyond 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?

Specific verb+resource: fact-checking an insider-buying claim against SEC Form 4, with two distinct modes (claim input vs. accession fetch). This clearly separates it from sibling list-style tools like insider_buys and from the other verify_* fact-checkers.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

"Use when the user wants to verify or fact-check a claim..." gives clear trigger context, and the description states the alternative access path (pass accession alone). It also pre-empts out-of-scope inputs (sales/options/grants), but never names the sibling tools an agent should pick instead for raw buy lists.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools