Get PayPerByte network-wide statistics: total publishers, messages streamed, and total subscriber fees settled in USDC.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| messages | No | Total messages streamed all-time | |
| publishers | No | Active publisher count network-wide | |
| totalSubscriberFeesUsdc | No | Total subscriber fees settled (USDC, decimal string) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about what statistics are returned (publishers, messages, fees), but does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination or latency. With annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads 'Get' and the resource name, then enumerates the specific statistics. No wasted words or redundancy.
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?
With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description fully covers what the tool does. It clearly states the scope (network-wide) and the key data points (publishers, messages, fees), making it complete for the tool's simplicity.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed; the schema fully covers the (empty) parameter set.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and specific resource ('PayPerByte network-wide statistics') with concrete details (total publishers, messages streamed, USDC fees). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that target individual publishers or specific data.
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 implies this tool is for global network statistics versus publisher-specific tools like byte_get_publisher or byte_list_feeds, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it or name alternatives. The context is clear but no exclusions or comparisons are provided.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct action or resource, and overlapping functions (buy_data vs subscribe, check_subscription vs list_my_subscriptions) are explicitly differentiated in descriptions. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
Most tools follow the byte_verb_noun pattern (e.g., byte_buy_data, byte_get_publisher), but a few deviate: byte_subscription_health uses a noun phrase, and byte_unsubscribe lacks an explicit object. The consistent byte_ prefix keeps the set recognizable.
15 tools is at the upper edge of the well-scoped range, and each tool serves a distinct purpose within the PayPerByte protocol—discovery, purchasing, publishing, verification, and account management. No redundant or filler tools.
Core lifecycle coverage is strong: list/search, subscribe/unsubscribe, buy, publish, register, verify, health, and network stats. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tool to fetch historical streamed messages or update a publisher schema, but these are workable.
