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 but lacks behavioral details. It implies a transaction (swap and join) but doesn't disclose that it's a write operation requiring signing, potential fees, or that it might affect liquidity pool balances. No information about rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on failure is included.

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 clear terminology. Every word earns its place.

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 transaction tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., transaction hash, LP shares), error handling, or important behavioral context like gas estimation defaults. The schema covers parameters, but the description fails to provide necessary operational context.

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 7 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying that 'tokenIn' is swapped exactly, which is already clear from the tool name. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 'Join pool by swapping exact amount in' clearly states the action (join pool) and method (swap exact amount in). It distinguishes from generic pool-joining tools by specifying the swap mechanism, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its closest sibling 'join-swap-share-amount-out' (which swaps for exact shares out rather than exact amount in).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a mnemonic for signing), compare it to other pool-joining methods like 'join-swap-share-amount-out' or 'prepare-join-pool', or specify use cases (e.g., liquidity provision with exact input).

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