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 action 'restores' but doesn't explain what restoration entails (e.g., does it overwrite existing wallet data, require authentication, have side effects like network access, or return wallet details?). For a tool that likely mutates state or accesses sensitive data, this is a significant gap.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy 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?

For a tool that restores a wallet (likely involving sensitive operations and state changes), the description is incomplete. With no annotations to cover behavioral traits and no output schema to explain return values, the description should provide more context about what restoration does, what it returns, and any safety considerations.

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, fully documenting all three parameters (mnemonic, prefix, accountIndex) with their types, descriptions, and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so 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 clearly states the verb 'restores' and the resource 'wallet', specifying it's from an 'existing mnemonic phrase'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'generate-wallet' (creates new) and 'validate-mnemonic' (checks validity), but doesn't explicitly mention these alternatives in the description itself.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid mnemonic), when not to use it (e.g., for new wallet creation), or refer to sibling tools like 'generate-wallet' or 'validate-mnemonic' for related tasks.

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