Retrieve the three most recent posts (tweets) from a given X (Twitter) handle, including the full text content and date of each post. Cost: $0.05 USDC via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | X handle (with or without @ prefix) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description claims this is a read operation ('Retrieve'), but annotations set destructiveHint=true, indicating potential side effects. This contradiction undermines transparency. No explanation of any destructive behavior.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with key information, no fluff.
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?
Describes return content partially but lacks full specification (e.g., format, pagination). No output schema, so description should be more complete. Also missing behavioral context due to annotation contradiction.
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 covers 100% of parameters with a clear description. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema's parameter description.
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?
Description clearly states the action (Retrieve), the resource (three most recent posts from X handle), and the output (full text content and date). It distinguishes itself from siblings like interzoid_x_profile and interzoid_x_handle by focusing on posts.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus others like interzoid_x_profile. Cost is mentioned but no alternatives or context for choosing.
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.
