Skip to main content
Glama

byte-protocol

by io.github.0rkz

byte_register_publisher

Destructive

Register as a data publisher on PayPerByte. Registers a schema and the publisher on-chain. Requires PRIVATE_KEY. PayPerByte v1 publishers are first-party and unstaked — leave stake at '0'; a non-zero USDC stake is approved to DataRegistry first if you choose to post one.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stakeYesUSDC reputation stake to post, as a decimal string. Default '0' — PayPerByte v1 publishers are unstaked.
topicYesData feed topic (e.g. 'eth-price', 'weather-nyc', 'gas-tracker')
maxSizeYesMaximum payload size in bytes per message
frequencyYesExpected publishing frequency in seconds
pricePerKBYesPrice per kilobyte in USDC (e.g. 0.003)
expectedSizeYesExpected payload size in bytes per message

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicNoRegistered feed topic
txHashNoPublisher-registration transaction hash
successNoTrue if registration landed on-chain
publisherNoRegistered publisher address (the signer)
stakeUsdcNoUSDC stake posted (decimal string; '0' for v1 first-party)
schemaTxHashNoSchema-registration transaction hash
approveTxHashNoUSDC stake approval tx hash, if a non-zero stake was posted

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

While annotations already indicate this is a destructive/write operation, the description adds valuable context: it is an on-chain operation, requires PRIVATE_KEY, and details the stake approval flow (USDC approval to DataRegistry for non-zero stakes). This goes beyond the annotation hints and sets clear expectations for side effects.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by essential prerequisites and parameter-specific guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or vague content.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (on-chain registration) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers key prerequisites (PRIVATE_KEY), the main action (register schema + publisher), and important stake behaviors. It doesn't mention potential overwriting or network-specific details, but the output schema and annotations fill in structural gaps, leaving the description reasonably complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context for the 'stake' parameter, explicitly advising to leave it at '0' and explaining the approval mechanism for non-zero values. Other parameters are adequately described by the schema, so no significant extra value is added.

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 states a specific action ('Register as a data publisher on PayPerByte') and clearly differentiates from siblings like byte_publish_data by specifying it registers a schema and publisher on-chain. The title 'Register publisher' reinforces the purpose, making it unambiguous.

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?

The description provides clear context on when to use the tool: first-party publisher registration, and explicitly notes the need for PRIVATE_KEY. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient to avoid confusion with data-publishing or subscription tools.

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