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 mentions querying but does not specify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are returned, or any rate limits. For a tool interacting with smart contracts, this lack of detail leaves critical behavioral traits unclear.

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: 'Queries the state of a smart contract.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 smart contract queries and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the query returns, potential errors, or behavioral nuances. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 both parameters ('contractAddress' and 'queryMsg'). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints, but the schema adequately covers the semantics. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'Queries the state of a smart contract,' which clearly identifies the verb ('queries') and resource ('state of a smart contract'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'query-contract-raw' or 'get-contract-info,' making it vague in comparison. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity relative to alternatives.

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 'query-contract-raw' or 'get-contract-info,' nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Without any usage context, users must infer when this tool is appropriate, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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