Osmosis MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns statistics but doesn't specify what 'overall' entails (e.g., aggregated metrics, summary data) or any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how the tool behaves.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's moderate complexity (retrieving statistics with optional date filtering), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It specifies the action and resource but lacks details on what 'overall' means, the structure of returned data, or any usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information for optimal use.

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, clearly documenting both optional date parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'overall statistics' includes or how date ranges affect the output. 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('overall ProtoRev MEV statistics'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'get-protorev-profits-by-denom' or 'get-protorev-number-of-trades', which also return ProtoRev statistics but with different scopes or breakdowns.

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 multiple sibling tools related to ProtoRev statistics (e.g., 'get-protorev-profits-by-denom', 'get-protorev-number-of-trades'), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it's the appropriate choice over others.

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