Retrieve a comprehensive profile snapshot for an X (Twitter) handle including display name, bio description, follower and following counts, total post count, website URL, location, and account creation date. 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?
The description says 'retrieve' suggesting a read-only operation, but annotations have destructiveHint: true, indicating possible side effects. This contradiction is not addressed in the description. Cost information is provided but no disclosure of side effects or authentication needs.
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: first specifies the action and lists return fields, second states cost. Both are directly valuable and well-structured.
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 lists return fields in the absence of an output schema, which is helpful. However, it does not explain error conditions, rate limits, or the contradiction with the destructiveHint annotation. Adequate for a simple retrieval but missing context for the annotation discrepancy.
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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'handle' with a clear description. The tool description adds return field information but no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema.
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 action (retrieve) and resource (comprehensive profile snapshot for an X handle), listing key data fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like interzoid_x_handle and interzoid_x_last_three_posts by specifying a 'comprehensive profile snapshot'.
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 obtaining a full profile but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like interzoid_x_handle or interzoid_x_last_three_posts. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
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.
