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. While 'Returns metadata' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, what format the metadata returns, or any error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads 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 simple single-parameter lookup tool with good schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool returns but doesn't provide context about the metadata format, error handling, or relationship to other token factory tools, leaving room for improvement.

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, with the single parameter 'denom' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage situations.

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 metadata') and resource ('for a token factory denomination'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-token-factory-creator' or 'get-token-factory-denoms', but the specificity of 'denomination metadata' provides reasonable 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple related token factory tools (get-token-factory-creator, get-token-factory-denoms, get-token-factory-params) that could potentially provide overlapping or complementary information, but no context is given about when this specific metadata tool is appropriate.

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