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 information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it's safe, requires permissions, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be slightly more informative. The structure is straightforward, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 of blockchain/WASM tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned, potential errors, or behavioral traits. For a tool in this context, more detail is needed to adequately guide an agent.

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 'codeId' clearly documented as 'The code ID to query'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining what a code ID represents or valid ranges. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool 'Returns information about a specific WASM code', which provides a clear verb ('Returns') and resource ('WASM code'). However, it lacks specificity about what type of information is returned (e.g., metadata, bytecode, creator) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-wasm-codes' or 'get-code-metadata', making it somewhat vague.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after code upload), or comparisons to siblings like 'get-wasm-codes' (which might list codes) or 'get-code-metadata' (which might provide metadata). This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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