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 it 'Returns delegation information' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or the format of the returned information. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it effectively.

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's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to the tool's purpose.

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 implied by the sibling tools (e.g., various delegation-related tools) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't specify what type of delegation information is returned, how it differs from similar tools, or any behavioral context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use it correctly in a rich ecosystem.

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 'delegatorAddress' documented as 'The delegator address'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain what a delegator address is, provide examples, or clarify its role. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is added.

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 delegation information for an address' clearly states the verb ('Returns') and resource ('delegation information'), but it's vague about what specific delegation information is returned (e.g., delegations from, delegations to, amounts, status). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get-validator-delegations' or 'get-unbonding-delegations', which are related but potentially different in scope.

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 siblings like 'get-validator-delegations' and 'get-unbonding-delegations', it's unclear if this tool is more general, specific to a certain type of delegation, or serves a different purpose entirely. No context or exclusions are mentioned.

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