Retrieve the X (formerly Twitter) handle for a given person, organization, sports team, government entity, or descriptive phrase using AI-powered lookup. Returns the handle with a confidence score. Cost: $0.05 USDC via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lookup | Yes | Person, organization, team, title, or descriptive phrase to find an X handle for |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description describes the tool as 'Retrieve' implying a read-only operation, yet annotations set destructiveHint=true, indicating potential modification. This contradiction undermines transparency. No additional behavioral context is provided.
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 concise: one sentence stating the purpose and output, plus a cost note. No superfluous 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: input types, output content (handle + confidence score). However, the annotation contradiction reduces completeness.
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% with the parameter 'lookup' clearly described in the schema. The description adds no further detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool retrieves an X handle for entities like persons or organizations, and specifies the output includes a confidence score. It differentiates from sibling tools like interzoid_x_profile and interzoid_x_last_three_posts by focusing solely on handle lookup.
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 pricing information but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., interzoid_x_profile for more profile data). There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.
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.
Most tools target distinct data operations (matching, standardization, enrichment) with clear descriptions. Minor overlaps exist, e.g., address_match_advanced vs global_address_match, but descriptions differentiate them.
All tools follow a consistent 'interzoid_descriptive_function' pattern in snake_case, making it easy to predict purpose from the name.
58 tools is high for a single server, exceeding the typical 3-15 range. While each serves a specific data enrichment function, the quantity may overwhelm agents without clear categorization.
The tool surface covers a broad domain including address, company, person, and financial data. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no reverse IP lookup, limited social media coverage), but core data needs are well-addressed.
