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. It states this is a read operation ('Returns'), but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like rate limits, error conditions, permissions required, or what format the total supply is returned in. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 key 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 read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally provide more context about return format or behavioral constraints. The description covers the basic purpose but leaves other aspects undefined.

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 as 'The token factory denomination'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score when schema coverage is complete.

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 the resource ('total supply of a token factory denomination'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get-token-factory-denom-info' or 'get-supply', which might also provide related token information.

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 many sibling tools related to tokens and factories (e.g., 'get-token-factory-denom-info', 'get-supply'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for this specific query.

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