Osmosis MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'Exit pool' which implies a destructive write operation (burning LP shares), but fails to detail critical aspects like transaction signing requirements (implied by 'mnemonic' parameter), potential gas costs, rate limits, or error conditions. The description is too sparse for a tool with significant financial implications.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It is appropriately sized and efficiently communicates the core functionality, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 (7 parameters including sensitive mnemonic, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the transaction nature, return values, error handling, or security considerations, leaving significant gaps for a tool that performs financial operations in a blockchain context.

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 input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the 'tokenOut' parameter specifies the exact amount to receive, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Exit pool') and specifies the exact input condition ('by specifying exact token amount to receive'), which distinguishes it from generic exit operations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'exit-swap-share-amount-in', which likely handles a different input parameter (share amount vs. token amount), so it falls short of 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, such as 'exit-swap-share-amount-in' or other exit-related tools in the sibling list. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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