Osmosis MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Set new weights' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's irreversible, what happens to existing weights, potential rate limits, or transaction confirmation details. The '(governance)' hint is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise (7 words) and front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place: 'Set' (verb), 'new weights' (what), 'for a balancer pool' (target), '(governance)' (context). No wasted words or redundant 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?

For a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after execution, error conditions, permission requirements, or how this fits into broader pool management workflows. The 100% schema coverage helps but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'poolAssets' contains 'new weights' - which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Set new weights') and target resource ('for a balancer pool'), with the parenthetical '(governance)' hinting at administrative context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update-params' or 'set-token-metadata' that might also involve governance 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. With many sibling tools involving pool operations (e.g., 'create-pool', 'get-pool-info', 'prepare-join-pool'), there's no indication of prerequisites, typical workflows, or when this specific weight-setting operation is appropriate.

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