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. 'Undelegate' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't mention permissions, reversibility, side effects, or typical outcomes. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely modifies blockchain state.

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 waste. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 a blockchain transaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks information on behavioral traits, return values, error conditions, and how it fits among sibling tools, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context about the parameters beyond what's in the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 ('Undelegate') and the resource ('Superfluid staked tokens'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'unlock-period-lock' or 'unlock-and-migrate-superfluid-tokens' which might handle similar token unlocking operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 related to locking, unlocking, and delegating tokens (e.g., 'superfluid-delegate', 'unlock-period-lock'), there's no indication of prerequisites, timing, or distinctions, leaving usage ambiguous.

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