Fuse Network

Fuse Explorer API query

fuse_explorer_query

Generic dispatcher for the Fusebox Explorer API (/api/v0/explorer/). Pass module + action + any additional query params. Covers all 40+ etherscan-compatible endpoints including balances, logs, transactions, contract ABI/source, and the five contract-verify POST routes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	No	JSON body for POST verify-* actions.
`action`	Yes	Action within the module — e.g. `balance`, `txlist`, `getabi`, `getLogs`, `eth_block_number`, `verify`.
`method`	No	HTTP method (default GET). Use POST only for the five `contract/verify*` actions, which also accept a JSON body.
`module`	Yes	Etherscan-style API module: `account`, `block`, `contract`, `logs`, `stats`, `token`, `transaction`.
`params`	No	Additional query parameters (e.g. `address`, `fromBlock`, `toBlock`, `topic0`). Omit `module`, `action`, and `apiKey` — they're injected automatically.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose traits. It mentions covering POST routes and required parameters but does not discuss rate limits, auth, error handling, or response format. Adequate but not detailed.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Description is concise, listing endpoint categories in one sentence. Could be improved with bullet points or clearer structure, but no wasted words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema, the description does not explain the return value format or behavior for different endpoints. For a generic tool, more context on response structure would improve completeness.

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% and already describes parameters well (e.g., detailing 'params' to omit module/action/apiKey). The description adds minimal new semantic value beyond restating 'module + action + additional params'.

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 is a generic dispatcher for the Fusebox Explorer API, covering 40+ etherscan-compatible endpoints. It lists specific categories (balances, logs, transactions, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like fuse_get_balance which are specific.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description explains how to use the tool (pass module, action, params) but does not provide guidance on when to prefer it over dedicated sibling tools. Given many siblings, explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice is missing.

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?