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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'Returns metadata' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify what kind of metadata is included, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple query tool and front-loads the essential information ('Returns metadata about a specific contract').

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 no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks important context. Without annotations, it should clarify what 'metadata' includes, any behavioral constraints, and how this differs from other contract query tools. The description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps that could confuse an agent about what to expect.

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' clearly documented as 'The contract address to query'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, resulting in the baseline score of 3.

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 ('metadata about a specific contract'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'get-contract-admin', 'get-contract-code-id', or 'get-contract-label', which all return specific aspects of contract information rather than general metadata.

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. With numerous sibling tools that query contract-related information (e.g., 'get-contract-admin', 'get-contract-events', 'get-contract-history'), there's no indication whether this tool returns comprehensive metadata or just basic information, or when to choose it over more specific contract query tools.

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