fuse_smart_stake_tokenSubmits an ERC-4337 UserOperation that stakes a token using Fuse's staking module. List options first with fuse_get_staking_options.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tokenAmount | Yes | Amount in base units (wei for 18-decimal tokens). | |
| tokenAddress | Yes | Token to stake (must match a `fuse_get_staking_options` entry). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It states it submits a UserOperation (write operation) but omits gas costs, need for token approval, reversibility, or error conditions. This is insufficient for safe usage.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with action and resource, then a clear guidance. No unnecessary words.
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 staking operation with no output schema, the description lacks return value hints, gas estimation notes, or ties to related tools like fuse_get_staked_tokens. Adequate but incomplete.
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 already explains both parameters (base units for tokenAmount, match options for tokenAddress). The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond reinforcing the tokenAddress constraint.
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 that the tool submits an ERC-4337 UserOperation to stake a token using Fuse's staking module, distinguishing it from unstake and other tools. The verb 'stakes' and resource 'Fuse's staking module' are specific.
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 explicitly recommends listing options first with `fuse_get_staking_options`, providing a clear prerequisite. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or alternatives for similar actions.
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.