Osmosis MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the conversion action but lacks details on error handling, performance, rate limits, or output format. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is insufficient to inform the agent about behavioral traits beyond the basic operation.

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 purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 conversion tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value, error conditions, or how the conversion relates to CL pool mechanics. This leaves significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's full context and usage.

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, documenting all four parameters clearly. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 tool's purpose: 'Converts a price to a tick value for CL pools'. It specifies the verb ('converts'), resource ('price'), and target ('tick value'), with context about CL pools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'tick-to-price', which performs the inverse operation, preventing a perfect score.

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 the inverse tool 'tick-to-price' or any other related tools in the sibling list, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. This leaves the agent without explicit usage instructions.

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