fuse_smart_approve_tokenSubmits an ERC-4337 UserOperation calling ERC20.approve(spender, amount) from the configured smart wallet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| unit | No | ||
| amount | Yes | Allowance amount. Default unit is the token's display unit; pass `unit: "base"` for raw base units. Use `"max"` to approve the uint256 maximum. | |
| spender | Yes | Address being granted spending allowance. | |
| tokenAddress | Yes | ERC-20 token contract address. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reveals that it submits a UserOperation, implying a transaction that requires gas and is submitted to the blockchain. However, it does not disclose that authentication via the smart wallet is needed or that this is a write operation. Without annotations, more detail would be helpful.
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?
A single sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and mechanism. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the purpose.
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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It lacks details about the return value (likely a UserOp hash) and prerequisites (wallet authentication), but the core function is well covered.
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?
With 75% schema description coverage, the schema already explains amount, spender, and tokenAddress. The description adds context about the smart wallet, but the value 'above schema' is minimal. The 'unit' parameter is not described in the schema, and the description does not clarify it.
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: submitting a UserOperation to call ERC20.approve on a smart wallet. It distinguishes from siblings like fuse_smart_approve_nft and fuse_smart_approve_and_call.
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_smart_approve_and_call, fuse_smart_approve_nft). The description does not mention prerequisites or typical usage scenarios.
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.