Fuse Network

Smart-account: transfer token

fuse_smart_transfer_token

Submits an ERC-4337 UserOperation transferring a token (native FUSE or ERC-20) from the configured smart wallet. Gasless when FUSE_USE_PAYMASTER=true.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes	Recipient address.
`unit`	No
`amount`	Yes	Amount to transfer. Default unit is the token's display unit; pass `unit: "base"` for raw base units.
`tokenAddress`	Yes	Token contract address. Use the native-token sentinel `0xeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee` for FUSE.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description provides some behavioral insight: it submits a UserOperation, transfers tokens, and can be gasless. However, it lacks details on auth requirements, prerequisites (wallet deployment), error conditions, and behavior when paymaster is disabled.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with a conditional clause, extremely concise and front-loaded with the core action ('Submits an ERC-4337 UserOperation'). No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

While the description covers the basic action and gasless option, it omits prerequisites (wallet deployment), what happens without paymaster, return format, and authentication requirements. Given the tool's complexity (ERC-4337, smart wallet), more context is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 75% description coverage (3 of 4 params described). The description adds value by clarifying the unit parameter's default behavior and the sentinel address for native tokens. The unit parameter lacks schema description, but the description doesn't explain its enum choices.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

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 transfer tokens (native FUSE or ERC-20) from a configured smart wallet. It distinguishes from siblings like fuse_send_erc20 and fuse_send_native which handle direct transfers.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for smart wallet token transfers and mentions gasless capability with paymaster, but does not explicitly state when to use this over siblings or when not to use it. No alternative tools are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Fuse Network tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes (e.g., balances, trades, staking, notifications), but there is some overlap, such as multiple trading quote tools and parallel EOA vs. smart wallet operations (e.g., send_erc20 vs smart_transfer_token). Descriptions generally clarify differences, so only minor confusion is possible.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent `fuse_<verb>_<noun>` pattern (e.g., `fuse_get_balance`, `fuse_send_native`). The notification sub-group uses `fuse_notification_<verb>_<noun>`, which is internally consistent. No mixed conventions or chaotic naming exist.

Tool Count2/5

With 50 tools, the surface is very large and likely overwhelming for agents. Many tools could be combined (e.g., price history and change tools, or multiple notification CRUD tools). The count is excessive for the server's scope, reducing coherence.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of Fuse operations: token info, balances, staking, trading, ERC-4337 smart wallets, notifications, and contract interaction. The `fuse_explorer_query` tool provides a catch-all for additional explorer endpoints, filling most gaps. Minor missing explicit tools (e.g., block details) are mitigable.

Resources

Need Help?