Retrieve Bloomberg story cards for a specified editorial section slug from the categories endpoint. Provide the section to get its current headlines in structured JSON.
Get the latest stories in a Bloomberg section. Returns Bloomberg story cards from one editorial section. Section must be a slug returned by /bloomberg/categories.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes | Section slug from /bloomberg/categories |
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 transparency burden and does disclose the core behavior: it returns Bloomberg story cards from a single editorial section and constrains input to category slugs. It does not mention result ordering, pagination, limits, or invalid-section behavior, which leaves some behavioral gaps.
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 two tight, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The primary action and return type come first, and the critical slug-constraint is stated immediately after.
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 single-parameter read tool, this is nearly complete: it explains the input contract, the scope of results, and what kind of objects are returned. Details like pagination or result limits would be nice, but their absence is only a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and lack of an output schema.
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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the section parameter as 'Section slug from /bloomberg/categories'. The description essentially restates this same constraint, adding no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieving the latest stories for a Bloomberg section. It also narrows scope to 'one editorial section' and requires a slug from /bloomberg/categories, which distinguishes it from siblings like bloomberg_news and bloomberg_categories.
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 clearly establishes the prerequisite: the section must be a slug returned by /bloomberg/categories, so an agent knows to call that endpoint first. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as bloomberg_news, but the scope of 'one editorial section' provides clear contextual guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.