Osmosis MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('derives') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only computation, if it requires network access, potential errors (e.g., invalid key format), or output format. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe use.

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 appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more informative. No structural issues, but it's borderline under-specified rather than concise.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the derived address looks like (e.g., format, encoding), potential use cases, or error conditions. For a tool with 2 parameters and cryptographic operations, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 the two parameters ('publicKey' and 'prefix'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the derivation algorithm or prefix usage). 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 'Derives an address from a public key' clearly states the verb ('derives') and resource ('address'), but it's vague about what type of address (e.g., blockchain address) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get-wallet-address' or 'validate-address'. It's functional but lacks specificity.

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. Sibling tools include 'get-wallet-address' and 'validate-address', but the description doesn't clarify if this is for generating new addresses, validating existing ones, or other contexts. Usage is implied only by the tool name.

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