Fetch public Twitter/X profile bios and recent tweets by username without a paid API; it manages HTTP 402 USDC micropayments automatically.
Extracts public Twitter/X profile bio and recent tweets for any username without the $100/mo API fee. Automatically handles HTTP 402 microtransactions (0.03 USDC on Base).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | Yes | The Twitter handle/username to look up (e.g. "jessepollak"). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the payment behavior (automatic HTTP 402 handling, 0.03 USDC on Base), which is critical for an agent that will incur per-call cost, but omits rate limits, failure/refund behavior, and whether the charge applies per invocation.
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 tight sentences that front-load what is extracted before the cost/payment caveat. The '$100/mo API fee' framing is mildly promotional but is genuinely informative about why the tool exists.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately names the return contents (bio and recent tweets) and the cost model. It would be stronger with the count/format of returned tweets and error behavior.
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 100% and the single parameter is documented with an example handle, so the description need not restate it. The description adds no syntax, normalization, or accepted-format guidance beyond the schema's own example.
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?
States a specific verb (Extracts) and resource (public Twitter/X profile bio and recent tweets) scoped to 'any username'. This distinguishes it implicitly from the sibling twitter_search, which is query-oriented rather than per-handle, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: the 'for any username' framing suggests per-handle lookup versus a search tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the siblings. An agent must infer the routing from the phrase alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.