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. 'Returns' implies a read-only query operation, which is appropriate. However, it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, or whether this is a lightweight or heavy query. The description is minimal but doesn't contradict any annotations.

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 with zero wasted 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 parameterless query tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It doesn't explain what 'superfluid staking module parameters' contain or what format they're returned in. Given the complexity of blockchain parameters and lack of output schema, more context about the return value would be helpful for an AI agent.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description correctly indicates this is a parameterless query, though it could theoretically mention that no filtering or input is required. No additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 ('superfluid staking module parameters'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get-staking-params' or 'get-distribution-params', but the specific focus on 'superfluid' provides reasonable differentiation.

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. With many sibling 'get-*' tools for different parameter types (staking, distribution, mint, etc.), the description doesn't indicate when superfluid parameters specifically are needed or what context requires them.

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