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. It mentions the action (timeout) but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: it doesn't specify that this is a transaction requiring signing (implied by the mnemonic parameter), potential costs (gas), irreversible effects, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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: 'Timeout an IBC packet that failed to be delivered.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero waste, and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the transaction nature, return values, error handling, or interaction with sibling tools like 'acknowledge-packet'. For a mutation tool in this context, more guidance is needed.

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 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter relationships or usage examples). 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 tool's purpose: 'Timeout an IBC packet that failed to be delivered.' It specifies the action (timeout) and resource (IBC packet) with the condition of failed delivery. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'acknowledge-packet' or other IBC-related tools, which would require a 5.

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 minimal guidance: it implies usage when an IBC packet has failed to be delivered. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use criteria, prerequisites (e.g., proof requirements), or alternatives (e.g., when to use 'acknowledge-packet' instead). No exclusions or detailed context are provided.

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