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 this is a read operation ('Returns'), which is helpful, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless query tool. Every word earns 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's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context about the returned data structure, potential errors, or how it fits among sibling tools. For a basic read operation, it meets the minimum but doesn't provide helpful additional context.

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 the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly doesn't mention any. With no parameters to document, the description is appropriately minimal in this regard, earning a high score.

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 token minting module parameters' clearly states the verb ('Returns') and resource ('token minting module parameters'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its many sibling 'get-*' tools (like get-staking-params, get-distribution-params, etc.), which all follow the same pattern of returning module parameters. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 numerous sibling tools (e.g., get-staking-params, get-distribution-params) that similarly fetch module parameters, there's no indication of what makes 'token minting module parameters' unique or when this specific tool is appropriate. Usage is implied only by the tool name itself.

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