Osmosis MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Returns' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this is paginated (though parameters suggest it), what format the return data takes, whether there are rate limits, or what permissions might be required. The description is too minimal for a tool that presumably returns potentially large datasets.

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 extremely concise at just 4 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary elaboration. This is an excellent example of efficiency in tool description.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'WASM codes' are in this context, what format they're returned in, whether there are any constraints on access, or how to interpret the results. Given the complexity of blockchain/WASM systems and the lack of structured metadata, more context is needed.

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 both parameters (limit and startAfter). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. This meets 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 verb ('Returns') and resource ('all uploaded WASM codes'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like 'get-wasm-code-info' or 'get-code-metadata', which likely return different aspects of WASM codes.

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 numerous sibling tools that also retrieve WASM-related information (get-wasm-code-info, get-code-metadata, get-pinned-codes), there's no indication of what distinguishes this tool or when it's the appropriate choice.

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