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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'admin only', indicating authorization needs, but lacks details on destructive effects (e.g., irreversible transfer), rate limits, or response behavior. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise with a single phrase, front-loaded with the key action and constraint. There is zero waste, making it efficient and easy to parse, though it may be overly brief for such a complex tool.

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 tool's complexity (admin-only mutation with 8 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the 'force' aspect or interactions between parameters. 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 clearly states the action ('force transfer tokens') and specifies the resource ('tokens'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings by indicating it's an admin-only operation, which is unique among the listed tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar transfer tools like 'send' or 'multi-send' beyond the admin aspect.

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 implies usage context by stating 'admin only', suggesting it's for privileged operations, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send' or 'multi-send'. No exclusions or specific scenarios are provided, leaving the guidance at an implied level.

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