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 this is a read operation ('Returns information'), which is helpful, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what 'information' specifically includes (e.g., balances, permissions, metadata). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.

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. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Returns information') and resource ('module accounts on the chain'), with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more specific to improve clarity without losing 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 blockchain module accounts and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'information' is returned (e.g., data structure, fields), nor does it cover behavioral aspects like error handling or query scope. For a tool in a domain with many similar siblings, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single optional parameter 'name' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this—it doesn't explain what a 'module account' is, provide examples of names, or clarify the scope when the parameter is omitted. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool 'Returns information about module accounts on the chain', which clearly indicates a read operation with a specific resource (module accounts). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get-account-balance' or 'get-protorev-developer-account' that also retrieve account-related information, making the purpose somewhat generic within this context.

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 that retrieve account or chain data (e.g., 'get-account-balance', 'get-validators'), the description lacks any context about when this specific tool is appropriate, such as for querying system-level accounts versus user accounts.

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