Osmosis MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Returns' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this is a real-time query, cached data, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what format the tally results take. For a governance tool, these behavioral aspects are important but undocumented.

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 that states exactly what the tool does without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and appropriately sized for a simple query tool.

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 single-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, without annotations or output schema, it doesn't provide enough context about what the vote tally response contains (e.g., yes/no/abstain counts, percentages, quorum status) or behavioral constraints.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'proposalId' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable given the 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 action ('Returns') and resource ('vote tally for a governance proposal'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-proposal-details' or 'get-proposal-votes' which might provide related but different information about proposals.

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-proposal-details' and 'get-proposal-votes' available, there's no indication of what distinguishes this tool (tally results) from those other proposal-related tools.

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