Osmosis MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'estimates' but does not clarify if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires network access, potential rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and constraints.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, earning a top score for brevity and structure.

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 the complexity of a swap estimation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the estimation includes (e.g., output amount, fees, slippage) or the format of the result, leaving the agent without enough information to understand the tool's full context and usage.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting all four parameters clearly. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as example values or interdependencies between parameters. Thus, it meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

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 'Estimates the result of a token swap' clearly states the verb ('estimates') and resource ('token swap'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'result' means (e.g., output amount, fees, slippage) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get-cl-swap-estimates' or 'prepare-swap-transaction', leaving room for ambiguity.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing pool or token data, or compare it to related tools like 'get-cl-swap-estimates' for estimates or 'prepare-swap-transaction' for actual swaps, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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