fuse_get_account_abstraction_infoReads ERC-4337 state for a smart account on Fuse: deployment status, EntryPoint nonce, and the account's deposit balance at the EntryPoint. Paymaster eligibility is not evaluated in v0.1.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nonceKey | No | Optional 192-bit nonce key as a decimal or 0x-prefixed hex string (defaults to 0). | |
| smartAccountAddress | Yes | Smart-account (ERC-4337) address — counterfactual or deployed. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Although no annotations are provided, the description clearly states it is a read operation, specifies the exact information returned (deployment status, nonce, deposit balance), and discloses a limitation (paymaster eligibility not evaluated in v0.1). This provides behavioral context beyond the input schema.
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?
Two sentences delivering all essential information: what the tool reads and a caveat about what is excluded. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core functionality.
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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and its limitations. No further explanation is needed for an agent to use it correctly.
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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds useful context: the smartAccountAddress can be counterfactual and the nonceKey defaults to 0. This extra information helps the agent understand parameter semantics beyond the schema alone.
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?
Description explicitly states it reads ERC-4337 state for a smart account on Fuse, listing specific data (deployment status, nonce, deposit balance) and noting what is excluded (paymaster eligibility). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from siblings like fuse_smart_get_info, which likely targets smart wallet info rather than account abstraction.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention when to prefer this over, for example, fuse_smart_get_info or other query tools. The context of ERC-4337 vs smart wallets could be inferred but is not explicitly addressed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.