fuse_smart_approve_nftSubmits an ERC-4337 UserOperation calling approve(spender, tokenId) on an NFT contract from the configured smart wallet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spender | Yes | Address being granted approval for the token ID. | |
| tokenId | Yes | NFT token ID (decimal or hex). | |
| nftContractAddress | Yes | ERC-721 / ERC-1155 contract address. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and description only states it submits a UserOperation. Missing critical behavioral details: this is an on-chain transaction costing gas, requires smart wallet authentication, and side effect is granting approval.
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, efficient and to the point. Could be improved by adding key behavioral information without becoming verbose.
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, and description does not state return value (e.g., UserOperation hash). Also missing prerequisites like smart wallet authentication and gas implications for an ERC-4337 operation.
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%, and description adds no extra meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3 per instructions for high schema coverage.
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?
Clearly states verb (submits) and resource (UserOperation calling approve on NFT contract). Distinguishes from sibling tools like fuse_smart_approve_token (ERC20) by specifying NFT and ERC-4337 context.
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?
Implies usage for NFT approval on smart wallets, but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool compared to siblings like fuse_smart_approve_token or fuse_smart_approve_and_call.
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.