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. It states the tool 'Prepares a transaction' but doesn't clarify what this means operationally—whether it returns a transaction object, requires signing/broadcasting elsewhere, has side effects, or involves permissions/rate limits. For a transaction-preparation tool with zero annotation coverage, this 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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly. No structural issues or redundancy are present.

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 4 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., what 'prepares' entails, return format), usage context, and output expectations. The high schema coverage helps, but the description doesn't compensate for missing behavioral and contextual information.

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%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'sender' as 'The sender's Osmosis address (must be admin)'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the action ('Prepares a transaction') and resource ('to migrate a contract to new code'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'prepare-execute-contract' or 'prepare-instantiate-contract' that also prepare transactions, missing the opportunity to clarify its unique migration focus.

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 (e.g., admin status implied by 'sender' parameter), when-not scenarios, or related tools like 'prepare-execute-contract' for non-migration operations. The agent must infer usage from the tool 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.