fuse_notification_add_addressesAdd one or more EVM addresses to a webhook's listening scope. Requires FUSEBOX_SECRET_API_KEY.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| addresses | Yes | EVM addresses to start monitoring for this webhook. | |
| webhookId | Yes | ID of the webhook to extend. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Only discloses the required API key. No information about idempotency, whether addresses are appended or overwritten, validation, rate limits, or side effects. With no annotations, the description should cover these aspects.
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?
The description is brief and front-loaded, but it omits crucial details like return value and behavior. It is concise but insufficient for full understanding.
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 tool with few parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks context about prerequisites, error handling, and return value. Does not mention that the webhook must already exist.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it merely restates that addresses are added.
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 the action: adding EVM addresses to a webhook's listening scope. Uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like remove_addresses and create_webhook.
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. Does not mention prerequisites like having a webhook created first, nor does it explain when to use this instead of update_webhook or remove_addresses.
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.