Fuse Network

Deploy contract

fuse_deploy_contract

Signs and submits a contract-deployment transaction using the server's signer. Returns the transaction hash, and the deployed contract address when waitForReceipt: true.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`abi`	Yes	Contract ABI. Required so constructor arguments can be encoded correctly.
`args`	No	Constructor arguments (defaults to []).
`bytecode`	Yes	Contract creation bytecode as a 0x-prefixed hex string.
`valueWei`	No	Native FUSE to send with the deployment, in wei (payable constructors).
`waitForReceipt`	No	When true, the tool waits for the deployment to be mined and includes the deployed address in the response (default false).

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description discloses signing/submitting behavior and conditional return of deployed address, but omits details like gas costs, failure modes, or the fact that server signer requires prior setup.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, directly conveys essential action (signs/submits) and key conditional return. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description explains both return scenarios (hash only vs. hash+address). It does not explain potential errors or prerequisites, but for a straightforward deployment tool this is largely sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema explanations for parameters like bytecode, abi, args, etc.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool signs and submits a contract-deployment transaction, specifies return values (hash, conditional address), and distinguishes from sibling tools like read/write contract which operate on existing contracts.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fuse_send_native or fuse_write_contract. The description does not mention prerequisites, ideal scenarios, or exclusions.

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

All Fuse Network tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

All 50 tools have clearly distinct purposes, with descriptive names and descriptions that differentiate even similar concepts like token pricing (fuse_get_token_price, fuse_get_token_price_change, etc.). There is no ambiguity between tools.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent 'fuse_verb_noun' pattern using snake_case, with groups like fuse_get_*, fuse_send_*, fuse_smart_*, and fuse_notification_*, making them predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count4/5

50 tools is on the higher side but appropriate given the breadth of Fuse Network operations (read/write, smart wallet, staking, trading, notifications, ENS, etc.). Each tool contributes to a well-scoped feature set without unnecessary redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a comprehensive range of blockchain interactions on Fuse, including balances, transfers, smart contracts, staking, trading, NFTs, notifications, and ENS. Minor gaps like governance or bridging exist but do not significantly impair common workflows.

Resources

Need Help?