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. 'Returns information' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects: whether this returns all validators or is paginated, what specific information is included (commission rates, voting power, etc.), or any rate limits or authentication requirements for this query tool.

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 without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple query tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.

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 query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what information is returned about validators (just 'information'), doesn't mention pagination or limits, and provides no context about the data format or structure. Given the complexity of validator data and lack of structured output documentation, this leaves significant gaps.

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 the optional 'status' parameter with its possible values. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation 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 information') and resource ('validators on Osmosis'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'get-validator-commission' or 'get-validator-delegations' that also return validator-related information, preventing 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 returning validator data (e.g., get-validator-commission, get-validator-delegations), there's no indication whether this is a comprehensive overview tool or how it differs from those specific queries.

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