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 a non-destructive, preparatory step, but fails to detail critical aspects like transaction fees, network requirements, error conditions, or what the output entails (e.g., a signed transaction object). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand quickly, with no wasted information.

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 a transaction preparation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, error handling, and integration context, leaving the agent with incomplete information to effectively use the tool in a blockchain environment.

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, clearly documenting all four parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter relationships or constraints. Thus, it meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately covers parameter details.

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 redelegate') and resource ('tokens between validators'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'prepare-delegate' or 'prepare-undelegate', which involve similar delegation actions but different operations.

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 'prepare-delegate' for initial delegation or 'prepare-undelegate' for withdrawing tokens. It lacks context on prerequisites, timing constraints, or specific scenarios where redelegation is appropriate, offering minimal usage direction.

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