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. It states this is a read operation ('Returns'), but doesn't mention pagination behavior (despite a limit parameter), whether results are sorted, what happens when denom filter is omitted, or the response format. For a tool with parameters and no output schema, 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 states exactly what the tool does without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple query tool and front-loads the core functionality.

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 query tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the return values look like (e.g., profit amounts, timestamps, aggregation method), doesn't mention default behavior when parameters are omitted, and provides no context about ProtoRev MEV beyond the name. With no annotations and no output schema, more descriptive context is needed.

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 both parameters completely. The description mentions 'by denomination' which aligns with the 'denom' parameter, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for 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 ('ProtoRev MEV profits aggregated by denomination'), making the purpose specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'get-protorev-profits-by-tx', which appears to return profits by transaction rather than denomination.

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. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'get-protorev-profits-by-tx' or explain the trade-offs between aggregated-by-denomination versus aggregated-by-transaction views.

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