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 'Submit a software upgrade proposal', implying a write operation that likely involves blockchain transactions, but it doesn't disclose critical traits such as required permissions, potential costs (e.g., gas fees), irreversible effects, or expected response format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 sentence, 'Submit a software upgrade proposal', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (10 parameters, 5 required) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like transaction signing, governance implications, or error handling, which are crucial for a tool involving blockchain upgrades. The high schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for the missing contextual information.

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, with detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., mnemonic for signing, height for block timing). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter relationships or usage context. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents parameters.

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 'Submit a software upgrade proposal' clearly states the action (submit) and resource (software upgrade proposal), but it's somewhat vague about the specific context (e.g., blockchain governance) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'submit-proposal' or 'deposit-proposal', which might handle similar proposal-related actions. It avoids tautology but lacks specificity.

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, such as 'submit-proposal' or 'deposit-proposal', nor does it mention prerequisites like governance processes or blockchain state. It's a standalone statement with no context for usage.

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