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'), which is helpful, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the returned account information takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 immediately conveys the core functionality without any unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the essential information.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks important context. Without annotations or output schema, it should ideally mention what information about the developer account is returned (e.g., address, balance, configuration) and any relevant constraints or dependencies.

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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing parameters, maintaining focus on what the tool does rather than what it accepts.

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 the resource ('developer account receiving ProtoRev profits'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-protorev-profits-by-denom' or 'get-protorev-profits-by-tx', but the focus on the developer account specifically provides some implicit distinction.

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. While the description implies it's for retrieving a specific account, it doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or how it relates to other ProtoRev-related tools in the sibling list.

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