Extract a public Bloomberg article’s metadata and body paragraphs from its canonical URL. Use it to retrieve readable article content; subscriber-only pieces are unavailable.
Get a Bloomberg article's content. Returns one public Bloomberg article's metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL. Subscriber-only articles are not available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Bloomberg article URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does reasonably well: it states what is returned, that exactly one article is fetched, and that subscriber-only content is excluded. It does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or URL normalization behavior, which keeps it below a 5.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no filler, front-loading the action and then adding the key constraints. Every clause adds information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter read tool, the description tells the agent what to pass, what it gets back, and a critical limitation. There is no output schema or annotations to rely on, so the return description is welcome, though metadata fields and failure behavior are not specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (the 'url' property is described), and the description adds useful semantic nuance: the URL must be 'canonical' and the article must be public; otherwise the call will not return results. This goes beyond the schema's bare description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get a Bloomberg article's content' and specifies the exact output ('one public Bloomberg article's metadata and body paragraphs'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like bloomberg_headlines and bloomberg_author by scoping to single-article retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context for the tool's purpose and includes a key limitation ('Subscriber-only articles are not available'), but it never names alternatives or explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions. An agent must infer from the name and sibling list that this is the single-article endpoint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.