Osmosis MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Prepares a transaction,' which suggests a write operation (likely requiring sender authentication and funds), but doesn't disclose key behaviors: whether it signs/submits the transaction, estimates fees, requires network connectivity, or has rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely modifies blockchain state.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Prepares a transaction'), making it easy to scan. However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating preparation from execution steps, but this is minor.

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 (transaction preparation for contract execution), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'prepares' entails (e.g., returns a signed transaction, simulation results), behavioral risks (e.g., fund loss), or success/failure outcomes. This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves significant state changes.

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 fully documents all 4 parameters (sender, contractAddress, executeMsg, funds). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples for executeMsg or typical use cases for funds. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 states the action ('Prepares a transaction') and target ('to execute a contract'), which clarifies the purpose. However, it's vague about what 'prepares' entails (e.g., constructing, signing, or simulating) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'prepare-instantiate-contract' or 'prepare-migrate-contract' that also prepare transactions for contract operations.

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 is provided. The description implies it's for executing contracts, but it doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., contract must be instantiated), exclusions, or compare to tools like 'query-contract-state' for read-only operations. Usage is inferred from the name and description alone.

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