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. It states it 'returns' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it's a query, whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the return format might be (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Returns'), making it easy to scan. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose, achieving optimal conciseness.

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 IBC tokens and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'source information' includes (e.g., chain of origin, denom trace), potential errors, or response structure. For a tool in a domain with many siblings, more context is needed to use it effectively without trial and error.

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 'hash' parameter documented as 'The IBC token hash'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain what an 'IBC token hash' is or provide examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, reflecting adequate but no extra parameter insight.

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 the source information for an IBC token' clearly states the verb ('returns') and resource ('source information for an IBC token'), but it's somewhat vague about what 'source information' entails. It doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get-ibc-rate-limits' or 'get-token-info', which might also return IBC-related data. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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 many sibling tools (e.g., 'get-token-info', 'get-ibc-rate-limits'), there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate, such as for tracing token origins versus checking other IBC properties. It lacks any context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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