Skip to main content
Glama

equibles

by io.github.daniel3303

Institutional Ownership History

GetInstitutionalOwnershipHistory
Read-only

Get the historical trend of aggregate reported 13F exposure for an exact stock or ETF listing across multiple quarters. The legacy Total Shares field sums reported quantities across common-share rows, put/call notional-underlying rows, and any tracked principal-denominated rows, so it is not a pure share-ownership measure. Shows how total reported quantity, published position value, and filer count changed. Values normally use report-date closing prices, may fall back to filer values, and can include zero when unavailable. While the newest quarter's filing window is open, non-ETF primary stocks use a provisional combined view; ETF listings remain exact and as-filed because carry-forward is filer-wide.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tickerYesListed security ticker (e.g., AAPL, VOO)
maxPeriodsNoMaximum number of quarterly periods to return (default: 8, clamped to 1-500)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / ticker / description
      Previous value: -"Company ticker symbol (e.g., AAPL, MSFT)"New value: +"Listed security ticker (e.g., AAPL, VOO)"
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining that the legacy Total Shares field sums mixed row types and is not a pure share-ownership measure, plus fallback pricing, possible zeros, and provisional combined-view behavior during the filing window. These caveats materially affect how an agent should interpret returned values.

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?

Four sentences, all dense with necessary caveats. The main purpose is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds interpretive value without filler or redundancy.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description names the key change dimensions: total reported quantity, published position value, and filer count. It also covers valuation behavior, fallback conditions, zero values, and filing-window nuances, making the tool safely usable by an agent.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage for ticker and maxPeriods, including defaults and clamping. The description reinforces the multi-quarter theme but does not add significant new parameter-level 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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieving the historical trend of aggregate reported 13F exposure for an exact stock or ETF across multiple quarters. The qualifiers 'aggregate' and 'exact stock or ETF listing' distinguish it from institution-portfolio or market-wide 13F sibling tools.

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 is provided: use this when you need aggregate 13F history for one listed ticker across multiple quarters. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope wording is precise enough to guide selection among similar 13F-related tools.

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

All equibles toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions that cross-reference related alternatives. A few near-duplicate names could cause misselection, notably SearchDocument versus SearchDocuments and GetCftcPositioning versus GetLatestCftcPositioning.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names consistently follow a VerbNoun camelCase pattern: Get for retrievals, Search for discovery, List/Read for document access, and Add/Close/Remove/Update/Watch/Create/Delete for portfolio mutations. Despite the large count, there is no mixing of naming conventions or unpredictable verb styles.

Tool Count1/5

108 tools is an extreme surface area, far beyond the 3-15 well-scoped range and well past the 25+ threshold. Even for a broad financial data platform, this creates a heavy selection burden and substantial context overhead for agents.

Completeness4/5

The server covers an unusually wide domain: prices, fundamentals, SEC filings, options, insider activity, 13F holdings, short interest, macro data, funds, IPOs, and full portfolio lifecycle management. Notable gaps remain, such as a basic company profile/ticker-resolution tool, dividend history, and analyst estimates, so it is not a perfect 5.

Resources