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'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what the metadata includes. For a tool with no annotations, 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded with more specific details, but overall it's well-structured for its brevity.

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 metadata is returned, potential errors, or how it differs from similar tools. For a tool in a complex ecosystem with many siblings, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand its 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with one parameter 'codeId' clearly documented as 'The code ID to query'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where 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 'Returns metadata for a WASM code' clearly states the action (returns) and resource (metadata for WASM code), but it's somewhat vague about what 'metadata' entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-wasm-code-info' or 'get-wasm-codes' that might handle related WASM code queries.

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 many sibling tools related to WASM/code (e.g., get-wasm-code-info, get-wasm-codes), the description lacks any context on prerequisites, distinctions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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