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' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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: 'Returns the self-delegation amount for a validator.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has no unnecessary words, and efficiently communicates the tool's function without redundancy. This makes it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, or output format. For a read operation in a complex ecosystem with many sibling tools, more contextual information would be beneficial to ensure correct usage.

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 parameter 'validatorAddress' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or validation rules. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles 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 tool's purpose: 'Returns the self-delegation amount for a validator.' It specifies the verb ('returns') and resource ('self-delegation amount'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-validator-delegations' or 'get-delegations,' which might return broader delegation 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 validators and delegations (e.g., 'get-validator-delegations,' 'get-delegations'), there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it from others. This lack of context could lead to confusion in tool selection.

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