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. While 'Returns' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this is a real-time query, cached data, or has any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational 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, efficient sentence that directly states what the tool does without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple query tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in conveying the core functionality.

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?

For a simple query tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, without annotations or output schema, it doesn't provide enough context about what specific tick data is returned (e.g., format, units, or structure) or any behavioral constraints. The description is minimally complete but lacks depth for confident tool selection.

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, with the single parameter 'poolId' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 the specific resources ('tick spacing and current tick for a CL pool'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from other 'get-cl-pool-*' tools by focusing on tick data rather than liquidity, incentives, or positions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible siblings beyond the naming pattern.

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 many sibling tools like 'get-cl-pool-liquidity', 'get-cl-pool-incentives', and 'get-cl-pools', there's no indication of when tick data is needed versus other pool metrics. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual alternatives are mentioned.

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