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 states this is a read operation ('Returns'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what 'Concentrated Liquidity positions' entails in terms of data structure or format.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context on usage versus siblings, behavioral details, or output format, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer 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%, with the single parameter 'address' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as address format examples or validation rules, so it 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 ('Returns') and resource ('Concentrated Liquidity positions for an address'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'get-cl-position' (singular) or 'get-cl-user-positions', which might cause confusion about scope or differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get-cl-position' (singular) and 'get-cl-user-positions', the description lacks context on whether this tool returns all positions for an address, filtered results, or how it differs from other position-related tools.

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