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. It states the tool validates addresses but doesn't describe what constitutes a 'valid' Osmosis address, how validation is performed (e.g., checksum, format), what the output indicates (e.g., boolean result, error message), or any limitations (e.g., network-specific rules). This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a validation tool.

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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it easy to parse. There is no wasted verbiage, achieving optimal conciseness for a simple tool.

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 validation purpose and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what validation entails, the expected output format, or error conditions. For a tool that likely returns a boolean or validation result, this omission leaves users guessing about the tool's behavior and how to interpret results, which is inadequate for effective use.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters ('address' and 'prefix'). The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond the schema, such as examples of valid addresses or explanation of the prefix's role. Since the schema already provides adequate parameter documentation, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as no additional value is contributed.

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: 'Validates if an address is a valid Osmosis address.' It specifies the verb ('validates') and resource ('Osmosis address'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'validate-contract-address' or 'validate-token-factory-denom', which perform similar validation on different resource types, so it doesn't achieve full sibling distinction.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for validation, or compare it to sibling validation tools (e.g., 'validate-contract-address' for contracts). Without such information, users must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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