Osmosis MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool generates a wallet with a mnemonic phrase but doesn't disclose critical behavioral aspects like whether this creates a persistent wallet, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens to existing wallets. For a wallet generation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 wallet generation (a security-sensitive operation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., mnemonic, address, private key), security implications, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's full 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 schema already fully documents both parameters (wordCount and prefix). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining why these parameters matter or their implications. 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 ('Generates') and resource ('new Osmosis wallet with mnemonic phrase'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'restore-wallet-from-mnemonic' or 'get-wallet-address', which would be needed for 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. With sibling tools like 'restore-wallet-from-mnemonic' and 'get-wallet-address' available, there's no indication of when generation is appropriate versus restoration or retrieval, leaving usage context unclear.

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