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. It mentions the action ('transfer') but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't disclose that this is a write/mutation operation (implied but not stated), requires signing with a mnemonic (security-sensitive), involves gas costs, has timeout mechanisms, or returns transaction results. For a complex 10-parameter tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses precise terminology ('IBC'). Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse 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?

For a complex cross-chain transfer tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks context on behavioral traits (e.g., mutation, security requirements), usage scenarios, error handling, or return values. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without relying heavily on the input schema alone.

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 fully documents all 10 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain IBC-specific concepts like sourceChannel or timeoutHeight). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 'Transfer tokens across chains using IBC' clearly states the action (transfer) and resource (tokens) with the specific mechanism (IBC). It distinguishes from most siblings (e.g., 'send' for single-chain transfers, 'multi-send' for batch transfers) by specifying cross-chain functionality, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible alternatives like 'force-transfer'.

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 (e.g., needing a mnemonic for signing), compare to other transfer methods (e.g., 'send' for same-chain transfers), or specify use cases (e.g., cross-chain asset movement). The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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