Osmosis MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool prepares an 'unsigned transaction,' implying it generates a transaction that requires signing and submission elsewhere, but does not clarify if this is read-only, destructive, or has side effects like network fees or state changes. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and safety profile.

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, with every word contributing to clarity, earning a top score 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 preparing a transaction in a DeFi context, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the output entails (e.g., a transaction object, error handling), behavioral implications, or integration steps, leaving critical gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. This meets the baseline 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 verb ('prepares') and resource ('unsigned transaction to exit a pool'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'exit-swap-extern-amount-out' or 'exit-swap-share-amount-in', which also involve exiting pools but with different mechanisms, so it lacks sibling differentiation for 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 exit-related tools in the sibling list. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implied from the name and parameters alone.

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