Osmosis MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the transaction nature but fails to detail critical aspects like required permissions, potential risks (e.g., irreversible locking), rate limits, or expected outcomes. For a tool involving financial transactions and delegation, this omission is significant.

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 front-loads the core action without unnecessary words. It directly communicates the tool's function, making it easy to parse and understand 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?

Given the complexity of a financial transaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, return values, or integration context, leaving gaps that could hinder effective agent use in a real-world scenario.

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 documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the relationship between 'coins' and 'valAddr' or providing examples. Baseline 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 clearly states the action ('Lock LP tokens and immediately delegate') and the method ('via Superfluid in one transaction'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'lock-tokens' or 'superfluid-delegate', which could cause confusion about when to use this combined tool versus the separate ones.

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, such as the sibling tools 'lock-tokens' and 'superfluid-delegate'. It lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or scenarios where this combined transaction is preferred over separate steps, leaving 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.