get_base_apitools_retweetersIdsReturns a collection of up to 100 user IDs belonging to users who have retweeted the Tweet specified by the id parameter. See details https://developer.x.com/en/docs/twitter-api/v1/tweets/post-and-engage/api-reference/get-statuses-retweeters-ids Group: Tweets. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| proxyUrl | No | ||
| resFormat | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the result limit (up to 100 IDs) and billing (1 Credit per call), but omits behavior such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination via cursor, error handling, or the fact that the tool is deprecated. It links to external docs for more details, which is helpful but not fully 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?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the main action, and includes useful metadata (doc link, group, billing). It is well-structured and avoids unnecessary verbosity. However, it misses critical parameter details, which slightly reduces efficiency for an agent.
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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter semantics, deprecation warning, pagination info, and alternative guidance. The external doc link helps but does not substitute for inline context. The tool is relatively simple (get retweeters IDs) but still has gaps that could lead to incorrect usage.
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 schema has 4 parameters (id, cursor, proxyUrl, resFormat) with 0% description coverage. The description only mentions 'id parameter' without explaining its format or constraints, and completely ignores cursor, proxyUrl, and resFormat. This leaves the agent without essential information about how to use these parameters or what values to provide.
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 what the tool does: 'Returns a collection of up to 100 user IDs belonging to users who have retweeted the Tweet specified by the id parameter.' It specifies the resource (tweets), the action (get retweeters IDs), and a limit. It also includes a documentation link and billing context. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling retweetersV2, the purpose is 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_base_apitools_retweetersV2. It does not mention deprecation (only in the title, not description), prerequisites, or typical use cases. The only contextual hint is 'Group: Tweets' and a doc link, which do not help an agent decide when to invoke this tool.
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.
The set is full of confusing variants such as get_/post_ prefixed duplicates of the same endpoints, competing V1/V2 versions of the same action (e.g., followersList vs. followersListV2), and poorly described tools like CommunitiesSearchV2 and getCt0 that give no clear unique purpose. Agents would frequently need to guess between similar tools for a single task.
Naming is chaotic, mixing camelCase (getDMS, likeV2), PascalCase (CreateNoteTweet, CommunitiesMemberV2), and inconsistent prefixes (gettools_*, get_*, post_*) with duplicated operations. The 'get_/post_' prefixes appear to indicate API method rather than action, but they are applied inconsistently, with some tools appearing under both and others only once. There is no predictable verb_noun pattern throughout.
With 107 tools, the server is extremely large, far exceeding the 50+ threshold for extreme mismatch, and this count is inflated by duplicates (many get_/post_ twins) and overlapping V1/V2 variants. Even the unique tool set is likely around 60-70, which is still an unwieldy surface for an agent to negotiate. This severely disrupts coherence.
The tool set covers most core Twitter/X domains: tweets, likes, retweets, follows, DMs, search, communities, lists, and profile management. However, it is cluttered with duplicates and lacks some obvious pieces like mute/unmute operations or a direct 'update tweet' action, and several tools appear to be thin wrapper variations of the same endpoint. Coverage is broad but not cleanly organized.