fuse_get_token_price_historyReturns OHLC / interval price stats for an ERC-20 token over a week, month, or year. Powered by the Fusebox SDK TradeModule.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeFrame | Yes | Granularity / range for the price series. | |
| tokenAddress | Yes | Address of the ERC-20 token to fetch price history for. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description lacks behavioral details such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., invalid token address), or response format beyond OHLC. Only states it returns stats, not how the tool behaves.
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?
Single sentence, no fluff. Could be improved by adding usage guidance without increasing length significantly. Efficient but missing some value.
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?
No output schema, no annotations. Description does not explain return format (structure of OHLC data), data limits, or what happens if no data for token. Incomplete for a historical data tool.
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 descriptions for both parameters. Description adds context that timeFrame values correspond to granularity/range and that data is from Fusebox SDK, but no additional syntax or constraints beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states verb 'Returns', resource 'OHLC / interval price stats for an ERC-20 token', and scope 'over a week, month, or year'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like fuse_get_token_price (current price) and fuse_get_token_price_change (price change).
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?
Description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. It mentions 'Powered by the Fusebox SDK TradeModule' but no guidance on context or exclusions. Usage is implied through the resource name, but not explicit.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.