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 offers minimal behavioral insight. 'Begin unlocking' suggests a multi-step process or initiation, but it doesn't disclose whether this is a transaction that requires signing (implied by mnemonic parameter), has network fees, affects token availability, or what 'begin' means operationally. No rate limits, idempotency, or error conditions are mentioned.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, avoiding unnecessary elaboration while stating the core purpose directly.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'begin unlocking' entails (e.g., transaction initiation, unlock period start), expected outcomes, error handling, or how it fits into broader unlocking workflows. The lack of behavioral context and output information leaves significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'specific locked tokens' relates to the 'id' and 'coins' parameters, but doesn't clarify parameter interactions or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 'Begin unlocking specific locked tokens' clearly states the action (begin unlocking) and target (locked tokens), but it's vague about what 'begin' entails versus completing the unlock process. It distinguishes from 'begin-unlocking-all' by specifying 'specific' tokens, but doesn't clarify how it differs from 'unlock-period-lock' or other unlocking-related siblings.

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 like 'begin-unlocking-all' or 'unlock-period-lock'. The description implies it's for specific tokens, but doesn't explain prerequisites (e.g., requires locked tokens), exclusions, or contextual triggers for choosing this over other unlocking tools.

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