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. 'Perform a stable asset swap' implies a transactional operation but lacks details on critical behaviors: it doesn't mention that this likely executes a blockchain transaction (requiring signing via mnemonic), potential costs (gas), irreversible nature, or expected outcomes. The description is too vague to inform the agent adequately about the tool's operational impact.

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 with a single phrase, 'Perform a stable asset swap,' which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While this conciseness contributes to under-specification in other dimensions, it scores highly here for being tightly structured without redundancy.

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 an 8-parameter tool for asset swapping with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key contextual elements like transaction execution, signing requirements, gas implications, or how it differs from sibling swap tools, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., mnemonic for signing, poolId, token details). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 'Perform a stable asset swap' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'stable-swap' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what makes this swap 'stable' versus other swap tools (like 'estimate-swap' or 'prepare-swap-transaction'), nor does it specify the resource or context beyond the generic term 'asset swap'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'estimate-swap' and 'prepare-swap-transaction' available, the description offers no context on differences, prerequisites, or appropriate scenarios for choosing 'stable-swap' over others, leaving usage ambiguous.

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