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' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or whether it queries real-time or cached data. This is inadequate for a tool with zero 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 that front-loads the core purpose ('Returns current downtime status for the chain') with zero waste. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 chain monitoring and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'downtime status' includes (e.g., uptime percentage, outage details), response format, or how it differs from similar tools. For a tool in a crowded namespace, this leaves significant gaps.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly implies no inputs are required by focusing on the action and resource. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it adds no unnecessary param info.

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 current downtime status for the chain' clearly states the action (returns) and resource (downtime status for the chain), but it's somewhat vague about what 'downtime status' entails (e.g., binary indicator, detailed metrics, historical data). It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get-blockchain-status' or 'get-chain-params', which might overlap in monitoring chain health.

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 related to chain status (e.g., 'get-blockchain-status', 'get-chain-params'), the description lacks context on specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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