InsiderTrack MCP

ticker_signal

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get a 0-100 composite score for a ticker, combining Congress and insider buying with momentum and risk, and see the reasoning behind the bullish, neutral, or bearish signal.

Instructions

InsiderTrack's composite score for one ticker, with the reasons behind it.

Score is 0-100: smart money (13F holders) + Congress buying weighted by each member's track record + corporate insiders (Form 4) + momentum, minus a risk penalty. label is the human bucket (e.g. "Strong Watch", "High Risk"); signal is BULLISH / NEUTRAL / BEARISH. Only tickers traded by a tracked member of Congress in the window have a score.

Args: ticker: Exact symbol, e.g. NVDA.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ticker`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark it readOnly and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the 0-100 formula, label/signal semantics, and the condition that not all tickers are eligible. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Every sentence earns its place: a one-line summary, the scoring rule and output buckets, an important eligibility boundary, and the argument definition. Front-loaded and free of filler.

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?

For a read-only single-ticker lookup with an output schema already present, this description covers the meaning, composition, output labels, eligibility condition, and parameter format. Nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning. It does: 'ticker: Exact symbol, e.g. NVDA' adds precision that the bare schema string lacks. This is sufficient for a single simple parameter.

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?

States a specific resource ('InsiderTrack's composite score for one ticker') and a clear verb implied ('get'/'return'). The 'for one ticker' scope and signaled outputs ('label', 'signal') set it apart from siblings like top_signals or leaderboard without needing to open them.

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?

Clear context: this tool answers single-ticker signal questions and explicitly notes that only tickers traded by a tracked member of Congress will have a score. It does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the boundaries are clear enough for selection.

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

Deploy Server