Skip to main content
Glama

byte-protocol

by io.github.0rkz

byte_query_fact

Query a PayPerByte fact-oracle publisher for a signed answer with citations. Posts the question to a registered fact-oracle publisher (topic='fact-oracle'), waits for the on-chain BroadcastStreamed response, and returns the answer plus structured citation URLs. The signed receipt proves which publisher produced the answer (provenance + tamper-evidence), NOT that the answer is correct — ground your output in the cited sources, not in a truth guarantee. Availability: this requires a registered fact-oracle publisher actively broadcasting; if none is live the call returns a timeout rather than an answer.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
questionYesThe factual question to ask (e.g. 'What was last night's Lakers vs Warriors score?'). Should be specific and verifiable.
topic_filterNoOptional topic filter (e.g. 'fact-oracle' default; future: 'sports', 'finance').
max_byte_costNoMax response payload bytes you're willing to pay for (defaults to 2000, ≈$1 at $0.0005/byte). Publisher refuses if can't fit answer.
min_publisher_pqsNoMinimum PQS to consider (BPS scale, 0-10000). 9000 = Elite-only, 7500 = Premium+.
subscriber_addressYesYour wallet address. You MUST be subscribed to the chosen publisher (with sufficient USDC escrow) or the publisher's on-chain broadcast will be skipped.
max_response_latency_msNoMax time to wait for the publisher's broadcast (default 30000 ms). Local-LLM publishers (Ollama + Searxng + 3-sample NLI gate) take ~30-60s; Anthropic + passthrough takes ~10-20s. Hard ceiling 180s.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNoError message if the query failed (no eligible publisher, broadcast timeout, etc.)
answerNoPublisher's grounded answer to the question
citationsNoURLs/sources cited by the publisher in support of the answer
confidenceNoPublisher-reported confidence (0-1)
elapsed_msNoEnd-to-end time to obtain the answer (ms)
request_idNoRequest id binding the query to this answer
payload_hashNokeccak256 of the response payload
publisher_pqsNoPublisher quality score (PQS) at fulfillment
publisher_addressNoPublisher address that fulfilled the query
response_size_bytesNoSize of the response payload (bytes)
publisher_tx_or_statusNoDelivery status or settlement reference

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes beyond annotations by detailing the on-chain interaction, the signed receipt's evidentiary limits, and the timeout behavior when no publisher is live. This adds significant transparency about external dependencies and result interpretation beyond the basic flags.

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 three sentences, with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by caveats and availability. No redundant information; each sentence adds value.

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 tool with a full output schema and thorough parameter documentation, the description covers the operational context, failure mode (timeout), and interpretational caveat (provenance != correctness). It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly and process the response appropriately.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% description coverage, with each parameter having detailed descriptions including defaults, constraints, and examples. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level semantics beyond referencing the question posting and timeout, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 function: 'Query a PayPerByte fact-oracle publisher for a signed answer with citations.' It specifies the resource (fact-oracle publisher), action (query), and output (signed answer with citations), distinguishing it from sibling tools like byte_publish_data or byte_verify_payload.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It provides clear context by explaining the query flow (posts question, waits for broadcast, returns answer) and crucial guidance that the signed receipt proves provenance but not correctness, instructing users to ground output in cited sources. It also mentions the availability requirement of a registered publisher, but does not explicitly name alternative tools for other use cases.

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