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 it 'returns' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it's a query, requires authentication, has rate limits, or details the return format (e.g., list of assets, metadata). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Returns available superfluid staking assets'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 complexity of blockchain/superfluid staking contexts and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'available' entails, the data format returned, or any behavioral traits (e.g., query type, potential errors). For a tool in this domain, more context is needed to guide effective 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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, earning a baseline score of 4 for effectively handling the lack of parameters without introducing confusion.

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 'Returns available superfluid staking assets' clearly states the action (returns) and resource (superfluid staking assets), but it's somewhat vague about what 'available' means in this context (e.g., all assets in the protocol, assets eligible for staking, or assets currently staked). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-superfluid-params' or 'get-all-pools', which reduces clarity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to superfluid staking, pools, and assets (e.g., 'get-superfluid-params', 'get-all-pools'), the description lacks context on prerequisites, typical use cases, or distinctions from similar queries, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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