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. While 'Returns' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns historical or current data, or what format the percentage is returned in (e.g., decimal, string). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 what the tool does without any unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a read-only tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what format the exit fee percentage is returned in (e.g., '0.05' vs '5%'), whether it's current or historical data, or any error conditions. With no structured output information, the description should provide more complete context about the return value.

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 parameter 'poolId' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter context beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., format examples, validation rules). With complete 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 clearly states the action ('Returns') and the specific resource ('exit fee percentage for a pool'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'get-pool-swap-fee' or 'get-pool-info', which also retrieve pool-related data.

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 that retrieve pool information (e.g., 'get-pool-info', 'get-pool-swap-fee'), there's no indication of when this specific exit fee query is appropriate or what distinguishes it from other pool data retrieval tools.

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