Osmosis MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements (though mnemonic parameter hints at signing), potential side effects, transaction costs, error conditions, or what happens upon success. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 maximally concise with a single 5-word sentence that states the core purpose. There's zero wasted language, and it's appropriately sized for what it communicates. The structure is straightforward 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 creation tool with 6 parameters (including sensitive mnemonic), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what gets created, what the expected outcome is, error handling, or how this differs from other pool creation methods. The context demands much more comprehensive documentation.

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 already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples for instantiateMsg, or clarify dependencies. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 'Create a CosmWasm-based pool' clearly states the action (create) and resource (CosmWasm-based pool), but it's vague about what constitutes a 'pool' in this context and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'create-pool' or 'prepare-cl-create-position'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about the type of pool being created.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'create-pool' and 'prepare-cl-create-position' available, there's no indication of when this CosmWasm-specific creation method is preferred, what prerequisites exist, or what scenarios warrant its use over other pool creation methods.

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