fuse_smart_call_contractSubmits an ERC-4337 UserOperation invoking arbitrary calldata on a contract from the configured smart wallet. Use when you need full control over the encoded call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | Target contract address. | |
| data | Yes | Encoded calldata (0x-prefixed hex). | |
| valueWei | No | Native FUSE to send with the call, in wei (default `0`). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'submits a UserOperation' and mentions the smart wallet, but lacks details on side effects, return values, prerequisites, or gas implications. This is insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate behavior.
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 fluff. The action is stated first, then the usage guidance. 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?
The tool submits a complex UserOperation but omits key context: what is returned (e.g., UserOp hash), prerequisites (smart wallet configuration status), and failure behavior. Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context.
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% with each parameter already described (to, data, valueWei). The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'arbitrary calldata' and 'full control', so the baseline of 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 submits an ERC-4337 UserOperation to call a contract with arbitrary calldata. It distinguishes itself from siblings like fuse_read_contract and fuse_smart_execute_batch by emphasizing full control over the encoded call and the use of the smart wallet.
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 advises using this tool when full control over the encoded call is needed, which implies it's suitable for raw calldata scenarios. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid it or compare to alternatives like 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.