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 what kind of information (e.g., metadata, liquidity, fees), whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool in this context. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., structured data, error formats) or behavioral aspects like permissions or limitations, which are critical for an agent to use it effectively alongside many sibling tools.

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 'poolId' clearly documented as 'The ID of the liquidity pool.' The description adds no additional parameter details beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't enhance understanding further.

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 verb ('Returns') and resource ('information about a specific liquidity pool'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get-all-pools' or 'get-cl-pools', which also retrieve pool information but with different scopes or data types.

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 related to pools (e.g., 'get-all-pools', 'get-cl-pools', 'get-pool-apr'), there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate, such as for detailed info on a single pool versus aggregated data.

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