Get a Bloomberg author's public profile and recent articles from a canonical author URL. Return name, title, bio, and recent content feed in clean JSON.
Get a Bloomberg author's profile. Returns one public Bloomberg author's profile (name, title, bio) and their recent-content feed from a canonical author URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Bloomberg author URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does state the operation returns one public profile plus a recent-content feed, which is meaningful context. But it stays silent on error behavior, feed pagination/limits, and URL-format validation, which a read tool with zero annotation coverage could reasonably disclose.
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?
The description is compact (~23 words) and front-loads the verb and resource. Minor redundancy: the first sentence ('Get a Bloomberg author's profile') is almost restated by the second, so it doesn't quite earn its place, preventing a 5.
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?
With no output schema, the description does the work of explaining return values (name, title, bio, recent-content feed), and the single required param is fully covered by the schema. Remaining gaps, such as the structure or size of the feed and error handling, are minor for a simple one-param profile fetch.
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 param is already documented as 'Canonical Bloomberg author URL'. The description adds mild reinforcement that the URL must be canonical and Bloomberg-specific, but no substantive new parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Get a Bloomberg author's profile') and enumerates precisely what is returned: name, title, bio, and a recent-content feed. The explicit publication name and resource type cleanly separate this from sibling tools like bloomberg_article, bloomberg_headlines, and bloomberg_news.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the name and description make it obvious this is the author-profile tool, and the canonical-URL requirement implies a prerequisite. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over bloomberg_article or bloomberg_news, nor any mention of how to obtain a canonical author URL.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.