Osmosis MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose that this likely involves a blockchain transaction (implied by mnemonic parameter), potential costs (gas), irreversible effects, or response format. For a tool with 8 parameters including sensitive mnemonic, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.

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 complex IBC transaction tool with 8 parameters, sensitive mnemonic input, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what acknowledgment means in IBC context, transaction implications, or expected outcomes. The gap between complexity and description depth is significant.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the tool's purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Acknowledge receipt of an IBC packet' clearly states the action (acknowledge) and resource (IBC packet). It's specific enough to understand the core function, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'timeout-packet' which handles packet timeouts rather than acknowledgments.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or related tools like 'timeout-packet' for handling unacknowledged packets. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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