Osmosis MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'prepares an unsigned transaction' indicates this is a read-only preparation step (not a write operation), it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: what format the unsigned transaction returns (JSON, proto?), whether this requires authentication, if there are rate limits, what happens if parameters are invalid, or that this likely needs to be followed by signing and broadcasting. The description is minimal and leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool that prepares transactions, and the information is front-loaded - the agent immediately understands this creates unsigned join-pool transactions. Every word earns its place.

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 transaction preparation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what format the prepared transaction returns, how to use it after preparation, what validation occurs, or potential error conditions. While the purpose is clear, the operational context for actually using this tool in a workflow is missing. The agent would need to guess about the output and next steps.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions (e.g., 'poolId' as 'The ID of the liquidity pool', 'tokensIn' as 'Array of tokens to provide'). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the description doesn't add value here but doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 an unsigned transaction') and the specific operation ('to join a pool'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'prepare-exit-pool' (which exits rather than joins) and 'prepare-cl-create-position' (which creates positions rather than joining existing pools). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'join-swap-extern-amount-in' or 'join-swap-share-amount-out' which might have overlapping functionality.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing wallet setup), when this should be used instead of other join-related tools ('join-swap-extern-amount-in', 'join-swap-share-amount-out'), or what happens after preparation (how to sign and broadcast the transaction). The agent must infer usage 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.