fuse_notification_remove_addressesRemove EVM addresses from a webhook's listening scope. Requires FUSEBOX_SECRET_API_KEY.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| addresses | Yes | EVM addresses to stop monitoring. | |
| webhookId | Yes | ID of the webhook to modify. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions an API key requirement. It does not disclose side effects, error cases, idempotency, or what happens if addresses are not monitored. This is insufficient for a modification operation.
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 a single short sentence plus a requirement, no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded with the main action.
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 two required parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It states what it does and a key requirement, though some behavioral details (e.g., preconditions) are missing.
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 the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, so 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 action 'Remove EVM addresses' from the resource 'webhook's listening scope'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling 'fuse_notification_add_addresses' by the opposite action.
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?
The description includes a prerequisite (requires API key) and implies usage for removing addresses, contrasting with add_addresses. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide direct comparison.
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.