Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Trading Signals MCP

Trading Signals MCP

by gdietsch
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

SEC Insider Cluster Buys (market-wide) ($0.02)

insider_clusters
Read-only

Find tickers with multiple distinct insiders making open-market purchases within a chosen lookback, including buyer roles, totals, and VWAP from SEC EDGAR filings.

Instructions

Price: $0.02 USDC per call on Base, paid automatically via x402 from X402_PRIVATE_KEY. Listed tickers where several distinct insiders made open-market purchases (Form 4 code P) in the last N days, with buyers, roles, totals and VWAP. From SEC EDGAR. Failed calls (4xx/5xx) are not charged. Informational only, not investment advice.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNoLookback by filing date (1-14, default 7)
minBuyersNoMinimum distinct insider buyers (2-10, default 3)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly and openWorld, but the description adds genuinely new operational facts: $0.02 USDC on Base via x402 pulled from X402_PRIVATE_KEY, failed 4xx/5xx calls are not charged, and the data source is SEC EDGAR. That billing/auth detail is exactly what an agent needs before calling a paid endpoint. It stops short of describing result volume or whether the list is capped.

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?

Roughly four sentences, each carrying distinct information: pricing/payment, the selection rule, the source, and the charging/advice disclaimers. Pricing leads, which is defensible for a paid tool, though the capability statement would be a stronger opener. No filler sentences.

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 two-parameter read-only listing tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the description supplies what is missing: cost, payment mechanism, billing failure policy, data provenance and the returned fields. The only material omission is how this differs from insider_buys, which matters given the near-identical name.

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% and both properties already document ranges and defaults (days 1-14 default 7, minBuyers 2-10 default 3). The description's 'last N days' and 'several distinct insiders' restate those semantics without adding format or edge-case guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter burden.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete resource and selection rule: tickers where multiple distinct insiders made open-market purchases (Form 4 code P) within the last N days, plus the payload fields (buyers, roles, totals, VWAP). That is far more specific than a restated name. It never contrasts itself with the sibling insider_buys, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which of the two to pick.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The 'market-wide' cluster framing and the days/minBuyers parameters imply the scan use case, and the description notes it is informational only. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no routing to insider_buys or other siblings. Usage is inferable but leaves the agent to guess.

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