exa_searchFind overseas tech trends, industry reports, and academic papers through English semantic search. Use descriptive queries to get relevant results.
Exa 英文语义搜索，适合海外技术趋势、行业报告、论文。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | 用描述性语句搜索效果更好，如 "blog post comparing React and Vue performance" | |
| num_results | No | 返回数量，默认 10 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it is a semantic search, which suggests query style matters, but it does not disclose return format quirks, whether results include snippets, or rate limits. The description is minimal but not contradictory.
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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and scope. No wasted words, but it could also mention when to use alternatives.
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 the tool has two parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidance and behavioral details. It is adequate for a simple search tool but does not fully help an agent decide between this and overlapping siblings.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the query parameter and num_results. The description adds only high-level guidance on query phrasing, which is already in the schema. It does not elaborate on the meaning of num_results or any other nuances, so value added is limited, but it reinforces the query style tip.
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 states a clear verb ('search') and resource ('Exa'), and specifies it's a semantic English search aimed at overseas tech trends, industry reports, and papers. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like 'web_search' or 'arxiv_search', which could overlap in purpose.
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 English semantic search but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'web_search' or 'arxiv_search'. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.