Get current Bloomberg stories across all sections. Returns titles, canonical URLs, and publication times in clean JSON.
Get the latest Bloomberg stories. Returns Bloomberg's current news feed: the newest stories across all sections, each with its title, canonical URL, and publication time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 full burden. It transparently discloses that it returns the current feed, the newest stories, and the exact fields (title, canonical URL, publication time). It does not mention any limitations like pagination or rate limits, but for a zero-parameter read tool, this is reasonably transparent.
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. The main action is front-loaded ('Get the latest Bloomberg stories') and the second sentence specifies the return payload. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is fully adequate. It specifies the scope (all sections), the recency (newest), and the fields returned. There is no missing information an agent would need to invoke this tool correctly.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description appropriately explains what the tool returns without needing to elaborate on any parameter semantics, as there are none.
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 ('Get') and resource ('latest Bloomberg stories') and clearly describes the output scope ('across all sections'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bloomberg_article (single article) and bloomberg_headlines (likely section-specific) by explicitly covering all sections.
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 implies usage for retrieving the overall current feed but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when to use this over bloomberg_headlines or other section-specific tools. No exclusions or 'when-not' guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer its niche.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.