twitter_search

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuinely non-obvious trait: automatic HTTP 402 microtransactions at 0.05 USDC on Base. However, it omits auth/wallet prerequisites, rate limits, failure behavior when payment fails, and pagination or result volume, so significant behavioral gaps remain.

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 with the capability statement front-loaded and the payment mechanism second. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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 tool is simple (2 params, no nesting, no enums), and the description covers purpose and cost behavior. Since there is no output schema, the description should have described the return shape (tweets, sentiment fields, counts), and it also omits wallet/auth prerequisites for the paid path.

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%, so query and limit are already fully documented in the schema; this sets the baseline at 3. The description only reinforces that cashtags (e.g. $BTC, $BASE) are valid query forms and adds nothing about the limit parameter.

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 ('Searches') and resource ('public tweets, cashtags, and sentiment across Twitter/X'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling twitter_profile_lookup (profile-centric) and the web-scraping siblings. An agent can route between search and profile lookup without opening either schema.

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 when/when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling alternatives such as twitter_profile_lookup. The '$100/mo API fee' line implies a motivation for using this tool but does not tell the agent in which situations it should be preferred over other tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.