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 states the tool prepares an 'unsigned transaction,' implying it's a read-only operation that doesn't execute, but it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., transaction object or error messages). This is insufficient for a tool with potential financial implications.

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 function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 financial transaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, output format, or error conditions, which are critical for an AI agent to use this tool correctly in a blockchain context.

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 80%, providing good documentation for parameters like 'poolId' and 'tokenIn.' The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples (e.g., how 'slippageTolerance' relates to 'tokenOutMinAmount'). Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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') and resource ('unsigned transaction for token swap'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'estimate-swap' or 'stable-swap', which also relate to swaps, so it misses full distinction.

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 'estimate-swap' for price estimation or 'stable-swap' for different swap types. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.

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