Osmosis MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns historical records but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, pagination details, rate limits, or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational constraints.

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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details, 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?

Given the complexity (historical data query with filtering), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'historical join and exit records' entail (e.g., timestamps, amounts), how results are structured, or any limitations, leaving the agent with insufficient context for 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (poolId, address, limit) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the format of 'historical records' or how filtering works. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 ('historical join and exit records for a pool'), making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'get-all-pools' or 'get-pool-info', which reduces clarity in a crowded 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 for pool-related queries (e.g., 'get-pool-info', 'get-pool-liquidity'), the description lacks context on its specific use case, such as for auditing or tracking liquidity changes over time.

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