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 query operation ('Returns'), implying it is read-only, but does not disclose behavioral traits like error conditions, rate limits, or what happens if the contract lacks IBC capabilities. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 zero waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary details, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on usage, behavior, or output, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent in selecting and invoking it correctly in all contexts.

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 'contractAddress' fully documented. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline score 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 clearly states the verb ('Returns') and resource ('IBC port ID for contracts with IBC capabilities'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-contract-info' or 'get-contract-admin', which might also query contract-related information, so it misses full 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a contract with IBC capabilities, or compare it to other contract query tools in the sibling list, leaving usage context implied at best.

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