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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'deposit tokens' which implies a write/mutation operation, but fails to disclose critical behaviors: that this requires signing with a mnemonic (a security-sensitive action), that it involves blockchain transaction costs (gas), or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with comprehensive schema documentation and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after deposit (e.g., proposal status changes, return values, error conditions), nor does it cover security implications of using a mnemonic. Given the complexity of blockchain transactions and 7 parameters, more context is needed for agent effectiveness.

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 7 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the relationship between 'amount' and 'denom' or clarify that 'uosmo' is the base denomination). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the 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 clearly states the action ('deposit tokens') and target ('to a governance proposal'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'vote-proposal' or 'submit-proposal' that also interact with governance proposals, which prevents a perfect score.

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 like 'vote-proposal' or 'submit-proposal', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing a valid proposal ID or sufficient token balance. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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