Osmosis MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a query operation ('Returns'), implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, what happens with invalid addresses, or the format of the returned admin address. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple query tool and gets straight to the point.

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 single-parameter query tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context. Without annotations or output schema, it doesn't specify what format the admin address returns in, error conditions, or how this differs from similar contract query tools. The description meets basic requirements but leaves the agent guessing about important behavioral details.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'contractAddress' parameter. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context about the parameter beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 the specific resource ('the admin address of a contract'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get-contract-info' or 'get-contract-label', but the specific focus on admin address provides some implicit 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 like 'get-contract-info' (which might include admin address among other details) or other contract query tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison to sibling tools.

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