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 this is a read operation ('Returns'), implying it's likely non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed liquidity information' entails. 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 purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 liquidity information and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't specify what 'detailed liquidity information' includes (e.g., metrics, timestamps, or structure), leaving the agent uncertain about the return value. For a read tool with no output schema, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, 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 resource ('detailed liquidity information for a pool'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-cl-pool-liquidity' or 'get-pool-total-value-locked', which might provide similar or overlapping information about pool liquidity.

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 related to pools (e.g., 'get-cl-pool-liquidity', 'get-pool-info'), the description lacks context on specific use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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