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. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects: that this requires signing with a mnemonic (security implication), that it creates a blockchain transaction (with gas costs), or what happens on success/failure. For a tool with 9 parameters including sensitive mnemonic data, 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 states the core 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 creation tool with 9 parameters (including sensitive mnemonic), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what an 'incentive gauge' is in this context, what happens after creation, or any prerequisites. The description should provide more context given the tool's complexity and lack of supporting structured information.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score. However, it doesn't compensate for any gaps since there are none in the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new incentive gauge for rewarding locked tokens'), providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create-pool' or 'create-cosmwasm-pool', which also create resources but for different purposes.

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 many sibling tools involving creation operations (create-pool, create-cosmwasm-pool), there's no indication of when this specific gauge creation tool is appropriate versus other creation tools.

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