fuse_get_user_operationsReturns the ERC-4337 UserOperation history for a smart account on Fuse, indexed via the Fusebox GraphQL service. Powered by the Fusebox SDK GraphQLModule.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sender | Yes | Smart-account address (UserOperation `sender`) to fetch history for. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (likely none), pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The mention of Fusebox GraphQL service gives tech context but lacks operational detail.
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, no filler. Front-loads the purpose. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but could be more complete (e.g., mention output format or pagination). It provides the essential context without being verbose.
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% for the single parameter 'sender', with a clear description. The tool description adds no extra info beyond the 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?
The description clearly states the tool returns ERC-4337 UserOperation history for a smart account on Fuse, specifying the exact resource and network. It distinguishes itself from siblings like fuse_get_transaction or fuse_get_balance by focusing on UserOperations.
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 versus alternatives (e.g., fuse_explorer_query for broader queries). No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. Purely declarative.
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.