Skip to main content
Glama

byte-protocol

by io.github.0rkz

byte_get_publisher

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get on-chain info for a specific PayPerByte publisher: status, subscriber and message counts, USDC revenue, and the registered schema (size bounds, cadence, price-per-KB).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYesPublisher Ethereum address (0x...)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
schemaNoRegistered schema (topic, sizes, cadence, price)
statusNoOn-chain publisher status
addressYesPublisher Ethereum address
messagesNoTotal messages published
lastActiveNoUnix timestamp of last on-chain activity
revenueUsdcNoTotal USDC revenue (decimal string)
subscribersNoActive subscriber count
registeredAtNoUnix timestamp of publisher registration

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by enumerating the exact data returned (status, counts, revenue, schema), giving context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with a clear verb and a parenthetical list of returned fields. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema present, the description adequately covers the tool's function and output. The sibling context confirms its specific niche, and no critical information is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage for the single 'address' parameter is 100%, and the schema already describes it as a 'Publisher Ethereum address (0x...)'. The description does not add new parameter-level meaning but is consistent with the schema.

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's purpose: 'Get on-chain info for a specific PayPerByte publisher' with a detailed list of returned data. The verb 'Get' and resource 'specific PayPerByte publisher' distinguish it from sibling tools like byte_search_publishers or byte_list_feeds.

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 a specific publisher but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention exclusions. The phrase 'specific PayPerByte publisher' suggests this is for fetching details by address, but no direct comparison to sibling tools is provided.

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

All byte-protocol toolsInspect
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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count5/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources