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 the tool returns a value but doesn't mention potential errors, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid inputs. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it highly efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for quick understanding in a tool-rich environment.

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 (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return value format, error conditions, or how the TWAP is calculated. For a financial tool with multiple inputs, more context is needed to ensure correct usage without relying on external knowledge.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., explaining relationships between parameters like poolId, baseAsset, and quoteAsset), so it meets the baseline for adequate but unenriched parameter documentation.

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 verb ('Returns') and resource ('Time-Weighted Average Price for a pool'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'get-historical-prices' or 'get-pool-spot-price', which might also provide price-related data, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 pools and prices (e.g., 'get-historical-prices', 'get-pool-spot-price'), there's no indication of specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for selecting this tool over others.

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