Osmosis MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Set metadata', implying a write/mutation operation, but fails to mention critical aspects like required permissions (e.g., admin rights), whether changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., affecting token usability), or transaction costs (gas). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to stating the tool's purpose.

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 (6 parameters, nested objects, mutation operation) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral transparency, usage guidelines, or provide any context beyond the basic purpose, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how and when to invoke this tool safely and effectively.

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 the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any meaningful semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the structure of 'metadata' or the implications of 'mnemonic' for signing. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 'Set metadata for a token factory token' clearly states the action ('Set metadata') and resource ('token factory token'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'prepare-create-token-factory-denom' or 'prepare-mint-token-factory-tokens', which also involve token factory operations but for creation or minting, not metadata setting.

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 lacks context such as prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing token), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get-token-factory-denom-info' for reading metadata. This omission leaves the agent without usage direction.

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