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 indicates a preparation step for a transaction, implying non-destructive and possibly read-only behavior, but fails to specify if this is a simulation, draft creation, or requires authentication. Critical details like rate limits, error conditions, or output format are missing, leaving significant gaps.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy 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?

Given the complexity of a transaction preparation tool with 7 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, expected outputs, error handling, and integration with other tools, making it incomplete for effective agent use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters like 'poolId', 'lowerTick', and 'tokensProvided' are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying these are needed for transaction preparation, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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') and the resource ('to create a new CL position'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'prepare-cl-add-liquidity' or 'prepare-cl-remove-liquidity', which prevents a perfect score.

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 other 'prepare-' tools for different operations or direct execution tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or comparisons to sibling tools, offering minimal usage direction.

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