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. It states it 'Prepares a transaction,' implying a non-destructive, preparatory step, but doesn't disclose if this requires specific permissions, what the output looks like, or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely interacts with blockchain transactions.

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 any 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 blockchain transactions and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'prepares' entails, the expected output format, or any behavioral traits, leaving the agent with incomplete information for proper 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline score for high schema 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') and the resource ('to remove liquidity from a CL position'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'prepare-exit-pool' or 'prepare-cl-create-position', which might involve similar liquidity operations, so it doesn't reach the highest 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as having an existing CL position, or compare it to other liquidity-related tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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