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 it 'Returns' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'incentive information' entails (e.g., format, scope). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, making it easy to parse without unnecessary details.

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 incentives and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'incentive information' includes (e.g., types, formats, or examples), and with no annotations, it fails to provide necessary context for effective use. This is inadequate for a tool in this domain.

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 parameter 'poolId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying it's for a 'specific pool', which is redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 resource ('incentive information for a specific pool'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-cl-pool-incentives' or 'get-incentivized-pools', which appear to serve similar purposes, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 siblings like 'get-cl-pool-incentives' and 'get-incentivized-pools' present, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.

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