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 states the tool 'Prepares a transaction', implying it generates a transaction without executing it, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this requires authentication, what the output format is (e.g., a signed transaction object), potential errors, or side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation-related tool with no annotation support.

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 and understand 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?

For a tool that prepares a transaction (implying mutation) with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication needs, output format, error handling, or how it differs from similar tools, leaving significant gaps in contextual understanding.

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%, providing detailed descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents parameters without extra value from the description.

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 instantiate a new contract'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'prepare-execute-contract' or 'prepare-migrate-contract', which also prepare transactions for contract operations, 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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., having a code ID or funds), exclusions, or compare it to related tools like 'prepare-execute-contract', leaving the agent without usage context.

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