Osmosis MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Prepares a transaction,' implying this is a read-only or non-destructive operation that generates a transaction rather than executing it, but it doesn't clarify if this requires specific permissions, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. More context is needed for a mutation-related tool.

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 details. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly while avoiding redundancy or fluff.

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 token minting (a mutation operation) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the prepared transaction entails, how to use it, or what happens after preparation, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to infer behavior.

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 input schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples, format details, or constraints). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 to mint new tokens') and specifies the resource ('tokens'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'prepare-burn-token-factory-tokens' or 'prepare-create-token-factory-denom' beyond the basic verb difference, missing explicit scope or context distinctions.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'prepare-create-token-factory-denom' for creating tokens or 'prepare-burn-token-factory-tokens' for burning them. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., token factory setup) or typical scenarios, offering only a basic functional statement.

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