Okay, look. I gotta be honest. When I first heard \”AI Agents on Sui,\” my immediate reaction was a massive sigh. Like, really? Another layer? Another thing promising to revolutionize everything while I\’m still wrestling with basic Move structs at 3 AM, fueled by cold coffee and sheer stubbornness? My desk is covered in scribbled notes about object ownership, and now I\’m supposed to integrate intelligent agents? The fatigue is real, folks.

But… curiosity is a curse. And maybe, just maybe, this wasn\’t just hype. I remember the grind of building simple automated tasks on other chains – the clunky interfaces, the gas fees that made testing feel like financial Russian roulette, the sheer friction. Sui\’s parallel execution and object-centric model always felt like it should be better for this kind of thing. Should. That word does a lot of heavy lifting, doesn\’t it?

So, I dragged myself into it. Deep breath. Opened the Sui docs. Got hit with the usual wall of technical terms. Felt that familiar wave of \”maybe I\’m not smart enough for this\” wash over me. Grabbed another coffee. The bitter taste matched my mood. Right, focus. Agents. Not Skynet (hopefully), just… helpers. Little programs that can do things based on triggers or schedules, interacting with Sui objects autonomously. Paying their own gas? That part sounded almost too good. Skepticism levels: high.

My goal wasn\’t grand. Forget building some market-making Daemon or a hyper-intelligent NFT curator (yet). I just wanted something… mundane. Proof of life. Could I make a stupid little agent that, say, monitored a specific object – maybe an NFT representing a concert ticket in my wallet – and if the event date passed without me transferring it or using it (loser status confirmed), it automatically donated it to some public \”expired tickets\” collection? A tiny act of utility, wrapped in my own laziness and potential embarrassment. Perfect test bed.

Setting up the environment felt… surprisingly normal? That was unnerving. `sui move new ticket_donor_agent`. Okay, familiar ground. The structure looked like any other Move package. The `sui-framework` was already there. But then, the `sui-agent` framework dependency. Added it. `sui move build` ran without screaming. Minor win. Maybe this wouldn\’t be a complete disaster? Don\’t jinx it.

Here’s where the \”agent\” part really kicked in. It wasn\’t just about writing a function. I had to define the agent itself – its identity, its capabilities. Think of it like creating a very specific, very limited bot user. In Move:

Creating this `TicketDonorAgent` struct felt weirdly concrete. Like, I\’m minting an actual thing that will live on-chain, capable of initiating actions. It needed a `key` ability because, well, it is an object itself. Sui\’s object model clicking into place here was actually satisfying. A glimmer of \”ah, this makes sense\” in the fog.

Next, the action. The what. This is the core logic the agent performs. It needed to:

Writing this function felt like writing any other Move entry function, BUT with one critical difference: it needed to be callable by the agent, not a user. That meant authorization. I couldn\’t just sign the TX with my key. The agent had to sign it itself. How?! Panic fluttered. Back to the docs (sigh).

Ah. The `authorized_actions` pattern. Basically, I define an action type that only my `TicketDonorAgent` is authorized to perform. It\’s like giving the agent a very specific permission slip.

Then, the actual donation function consumes this authorized action, proving the agent initiated it:

Getting the clock working was its own mini-saga. `sui::clock` requires specific handling and is shared. Fumbled with the shared object reference for a solid 45 minutes, muttering profanities at my monitor. Why is time always so hard?

Okay. Agent object defined. Action type defined. Execution logic written. Now… how does this thing actually run? This is where the \”simple setup\” feels like it glosses over the real-world glue. The agent\’s logic is on-chain, but the trigger – the thing that tells it \”wake up and check!\” – that often lives off-chain. Because polling on-chain state constantly from on-chain is inefficient and expensive.

This is where the Sui ecosystem tooling comes in. Services like Mysten Labs\’ own cloud-based \”Agent Services\” (still in early stages, felt a bit rough around the edges when I poked) or potentially other node providers offer ways to register your agent\’s intent and have their infrastructure monitor for conditions (like time passing!) and initiate the on-chain transaction on behalf of the agent when needed. They handle the signing with the agent\’s key (which you securely register with them).

Setting this up involved:

The first test run. Heart pounding slightly. Would it work? Would it donate my precious (testnet) ticket prematurely? Would it just burn gas and fail? I saw the TX get submitted via the service\’s logs… waited… Sui Explorer… refresh… refresh… SUCCESS. The `execute_donate` function was called. By my agent! The expired ticket was gone from my wallet and sitting in the vault.

It… worked. A strange mix of relief, exhaustion, and a tiny spark of \”huh, that is kinda cool\” emerged. Not fireworks. More like a single, flickering candle in the dark cave of blockchain development. The friction wasn\’t gone – the off-chain orchestration is still clunky, the dynamic object finding is a problem I punted on, and the agent services ecosystem is nascent. But the core? The ability for an on-chain entity I created to autonomously perform an action, paying its own gas, interacting with objects based on logic and time? That part felt surprisingly solid. Sui\’s model does seem to provide a genuinely better foundation for this than the EVM chains I\’ve wrestled with. The object ownership and parallel execution meant the agent\’s action didn\’t get tangled in other state updates. It just… happened.

So, am I suddenly an AI Agent evangelist? Hell no. I\’m still tired. The setup has rough edges that need smoothing out by better tooling and documentation. It requires bridging the on-chain and off-chain worlds, which is always fiddly. But that spark? It\’s enough to make me think, \”Okay, maybe I\’ll try something slightly less stupid next.\” Maybe an agent that auto-renews a domain name registration paid in SUI? Or one that snipes a specific type of item in a game if the price dips? The potential for automating tedious on-chain interactions feels tangible now, not just theoretical. It\’s not magic. It\’s plumbing. Complex, sometimes frustrating plumbing. But the water\’s flowing. Time for more coffee. And maybe a nap.

【FAQ】

Q: This \”off-chain trigger\” thing sounds messy. Do I really need an external service? Can\’t the agent just run autonomously on-chain?

A> Ugh, I wish. Genuinely. But right now? Yeah, you pretty much do need that external service for anything involving time-based triggers or complex event monitoring. On-chain logic is deterministic and needs a transaction to execute. Something external has to initiate that TX when the condition (like \”it\’s Tuesday\”) is met. Polling constantly from within a Move function would be insanely gas-inefficient and impractical. Services handle listening for events or time and firing off the TX. Hopefully, this gets more seamless over time. It\’s the biggest friction point I felt.

Q: How does gas work for the agent? Who pays?

A> This was a pleasant surprise, actually. The agent itself needs to own gas coins (SUI). When you set up the agent service, you fund the agent\’s on-chain address with some SUI. When the service triggers the agent\’s action, it uses those coins to pay for the gas of the transaction. So the agent is truly autonomous in that sense – it pays its own way. You just need to keep its gas tank topped up. No more you personally signing and paying for every little automated task. Huge win.

Q: Is this secure? Handing signing capability to some service sounds risky…

A> Valid concern. It made me nervous too. The key is how the agent service handles it. Reputable ones (ideally) use a secure enclave or dedicated keys per agent that are ONLY authorized to perform the specific actions defined in your Move module (like `DonateExpiredTicketAction`). They shouldn\’t have your personal key or blanket access. You authorize that specific agent object to be controlled by their specific service key for those specific actions. It\’s granular. Still, trust the service provider to handle those keys securely! Research them. This is where decentralization purists will grind their teeth, but it\’s the practical reality right now.

Q: Can my agent interact with any contract, or just stuff I deploy?

A> In theory, it can interact with any public function on Sui, just like a regular user! Your agent\’s Move module needs to import the necessary types and functions from the other package. So, if there\’s a DeFi protocol with a public `claim_rewards` function, your agent could potentially call it (if authorized correctly and has the gas). The challenge is often understanding the complex inputs and state management required by those external contracts, which can be way harder than my simple ticket example. But technically, yes, the agent acts like any other caller.

Q: This seems complex for a \”Simple Setup Tutorial\”. Is it worth it?

A> Stares blankly at cold coffee. Depends. If you have a repetitive, well-defined on-chain task that happens on a schedule or based on a clear event, and you\’re sick of doing it manually or building clunky off-chain scripts you have to run and pay for? Then yeah, the initial setup pain might be worth the long-term automation. For one-offs? Probably not. For complex, dynamic decision-making? We\’re not there yet. It\’s an investment. My POC felt like a lot of work for a silly ticket donation, but the pattern is what\’s valuable. It opens doors. Just… manage your expectations and caffeine intake.