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 but offers minimal behavioral context. It states it 'returns all' but doesn't clarify if this is paginated, rate-limited, requires authentication, or what format the return data takes. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational 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 that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded and wastes no space, making it ideal for quick comprehension.

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 query tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what 'denoms' are in this context, what the return structure looks like, or any behavioral constraints. With no annotations and no output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 schema already fully documents the single 'creator' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., address format, validation rules, or examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 resource ('all token factory denoms created by an address'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-token-factory-denoms' or 'get-token-factory-creator', but the specificity about filtering by creator address provides 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage when you need denoms filtered by creator, but it doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or when other tools like 'get-token-factory-denoms' might be more appropriate.

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