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 only mentions returning filtered information, without disclosing behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, permissions needed, or what 'lock information' entails (e.g., format, fields). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, front-loading the core action and filter. It's appropriately sized for its simple purpose, 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'lock information' includes, potential errors, or behavioral context, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's full operation in this complex blockchain environment.

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 both parameters (lockType with enum, address as optional). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying filtering by type, which is already covered. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics effectively.

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 verb ('Returns') and resource ('lock information') with a specific filter ('by lock type'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-lockups' or 'get-synthetic-locks-by-lock-id', which might also retrieve lock-related data, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 other lock-related tools in the sibling list. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons, leaving usage ambiguous beyond the basic filter stated.

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