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 mentions 'Returns events' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 complexity of querying contract events in a blockchain context, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'events' entail (e.g., logs, transactions), return format, or error scenarios. For a tool with 3 parameters and rich sibling tools, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 input schema fully documents the parameters (contractAddress, eventType, limit). The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining event types or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 states the tool 'Returns events emitted by a contract', which clearly indicates the action (returns) and resource (contract events). However, it lacks specificity about what types of events or how they differ from other contract-related tools like 'get-contract-history' or 'get-contract-info', making it vague in sibling 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 many sibling tools like 'get-contract-history' and 'get-contract-info', the description does not specify if this is for real-time events, historical logs, or how it relates to other contract queries, leaving usage unclear.

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