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 the tool returns data but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple parameters and no output schema.

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, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary details, earning its place.

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 has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral context, making it inadequate for a data retrieval tool with this complexity.

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 fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying historical data retrieval, which is already covered by parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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 'historical price data for a token pair', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-pool-spot-price' or 'get-twap', which might also provide price-related data, so it misses full sibling 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid poolId or token pair, and does not mention any exclusions or recommended scenarios, leaving usage unclear.

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