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'), but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data or simple strings, or how it handles invalid pool IDs. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and includes the specific return values. Every word earns its place with no redundant information or 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?

For a simple read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool returns but lacks important context about the return format (e.g., string, object), error handling, and when to use versus alternatives. Given the rich ecosystem of pool-related tools, more guidance would be helpful, but the core functionality is clear.

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%, with the single parameter 'poolId' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides - it doesn't explain pool ID format, validation requirements, or provide examples. With high 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 verb ('Returns') and resource ('type of a pool'), specifying the three possible pool types (balancer, stableswap, concentrated-liquidity). It distinguishes from many siblings by focusing on pool type retrieval rather than other pool attributes like liquidity, fees, or incentives. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'get-pool-info' that might also return type information.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many pool-related sibling tools (e.g., get-pool-info, get-cl-pools, get-all-pools), the description doesn't indicate whether this is the preferred method for obtaining pool type or when other tools might be more appropriate. It simply states what the tool does without context.

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