Osmosis MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Unlock tokens') but doesn't clarify critical aspects like whether this is a write operation, if it requires specific permissions, what happens to the tokens post-unlock, or potential side effects. The mention of 'completed lock period' hints at a condition, but more behavioral context is needed for safe invocation.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly and understand the core action.

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 insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, return values, and usage context. For a tool that likely modifies state and involves sensitive parameters like a mnemonic, more completeness is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting all 5 parameters clearly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the 'id' parameter's format or the 'mnemonic' usage context. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 ('Unlock') and the target resource ('tokens from a completed lock period'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'begin-unlocking' or 'begin-unlocking-all', which likely handle different stages of the unlocking process, leaving some ambiguity about when this exact tool should be used.

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 like 'begin-unlocking' or 'begin-unlocking-all', nor does it mention prerequisites such as the lock period needing to be completed. It lacks explicit context for usage, leaving the agent to infer timing and conditions from the description alone.

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