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 only states it's a transaction without disclosing critical behaviors: it requires signing (implied by mnemonic parameter but not stated), involves on-chain costs (gas), is irreversible, or has security implications. The description lacks behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, zero wasted words. It efficiently communicates the essential function without unnecessary elaboration.

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 transaction tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It misses critical context: no mention of blockchain network, token types, error handling, return values, or safety warnings about mnemonic usage, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying batch processing through 'multiple addresses', which aligns with the 'outputs' array but doesn't clarify syntax, validation rules, or interactions between inputs/outputs.

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 ('Send tokens') and resource ('to multiple addresses'), specifying it happens 'in a single transaction'. It distinguishes from the simpler 'send' tool by emphasizing batch capability, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other payment-related siblings like 'ibc-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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send' (for single transfers) or 'ibc-transfer' (for cross-chain). The description implies batch usage but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios for multi-send operations.

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