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 for behavioral disclosure. While 'returns' implies a read operation, it doesn't mention pagination behavior (despite the limit parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no denominations exist. The description lacks crucial operational context.

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 zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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 read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior, or error conditions. With 2 parameters and complex sibling tools available, more context about what 'all' means and how results are structured would be valuable.

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 fully documents both parameters (creator filter and limit with default). The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, making the baseline 3 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 'Returns all token factory denominations' clearly states the verb ('returns') and resource ('token factory denominations'), but it's somewhat vague about scope. It doesn't specify whether this returns all denominations globally or within a specific context, and it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get-denoms-by-creator' or 'get-token-factory-denom-info'.

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 sibling tools like 'get-denoms-by-creator' and 'get-token-factory-denom-info' available, there's no indication of when this list-all tool is preferable versus more specific queries.

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