Osmosis MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Prepares a transaction,' implying it generates a transaction without executing it, but doesn't clarify if this requires specific permissions, what happens to burned tokens (irreversible destruction), or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 ('Prepares a transaction to burn tokens') with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 token-burning operation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., irreversibility, permissions), expected output (e.g., transaction object), and doesn't compensate for the absence of structured data, making it inadequate for safe tool invocation.

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 input schema already documents all parameters (sender, denom, amount, burnFrom) with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 ('Prepares a transaction to burn tokens') with a specific verb ('Prepares') and resource ('tokens'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'prepare-mint-token-factory-tokens' or 'prepare-create-token-factory-denom', which are also token factory operations, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., token ownership), exclusions, or related tools like 'prepare-mint-token-factory-tokens' for minting, leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.

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