twitter_postPost a tweet from an X account you control (via injected session cookies). Costs 0.001 USDC, paid per-action via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Tweet text | |
| cookies | Yes | Non-empty array of session cookies for the X account | |
| payment | No | base64 x402 payment payload (X-PAYMENT); omit on first call to receive payment instructions | |
| account_id | Yes | Your identifier for the X account | |
| community_id | No | ||
| proxy_session_id | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the cost (0.001 USDC) and authentication method (session cookies), which is helpful. However, it does not disclose the two-step payment flow (first call returns instructions) or potential failure modes, leaving a moderate gap.
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 only two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. It is lean and readable with no filler, scoring high on conciseness.
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?
The description gives necessary high-level context (action, auth, cost) but omits details about the payment progression and the optional parameters. Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete.
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 67% with 4 of 6 parameters described. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, only reinforcing 'session cookies' and adding cost context. It does not help clarify the undocumented parameters community_id and proxy_session_id, which remain opaque.
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 clearly states the tool posts a tweet to X (Twitter) using session cookies, distinguishing it from sibling posting tools like tiktok_post. The verb 'Post' and resource 'X account' are specific and unambiguous.
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 provides useful guidance by noting the account must be controlled via injected session cookies and that payment occurs per-action via x402, implying this is for authorized posting. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the X-specific context and payment model give clear usage contours.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, clearly separated by domain prefixes (card_, email_, phone_, tiktok_). The only potential overlap is phone_read_messages vs wait_for_otp, but wait_for_otp is specifically for OTP extraction and is described as a replacement for hand-rolled polling, making the boundary clear. Status pollers are also domain-specific (card_status, tiktok_connect_status, tiktok_operation_status) and not ambiguous.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case convention with domain-first prefixes (e.g., card_buy, email_send, tiktok_post, phone_temp_number). Even less common names like wait_for_otp and i402_plan are descriptive and stylistically consistent. There are no mixed conventions or vague verbs.
33 tools is above the typical 3-15 range, but the server covers a broad multi-domain purpose (cards, compute, domains, email, phone, TikTok, Twitter, orchestration). Each domain has a focused and coherent set, so the count feels justified rather than bloated. It is slightly high, but not excessively so.
Coverage is solid for email, phone, and TikTok, with full lifecycle operations (create, read, extend, delete/cancel where applicable). However, there are notable gaps: compute has only deploy (no list/stop/delete), domains have only check/register (no list/delete), and Twitter has only post (no read/manage). These gaps could force agents to work around missing resource management.