Skip to main content
Glama

byte-protocol

by io.github.0rkz

byte_subscription_health

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the content-drift signal for a publisher. Compares their last 7 days of publishing activity (cadence, message count) against their 23-day baseline (days 8-30). Returns 'stable' (steady publishing), 'moderate' (20-50% cadence shift or 24-48h silence), 'significant' (>50% shift or >48h silence), or 'unknown' (new publisher, insufficient baseline). Use this to detect when a publisher you subscribe to has pivoted content or gone dormant.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
publisherYesPublisher address to check
indexerUrlNoOptional indexer URL override

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
signalNoContent-drift bucket for the publisher
publisherNoPublisher address checked
messages7dNoMessages in the last 7 days
messages30dNoMessages in the last 30 days
messages_7dNoMessages in the last 7 days (indexer key)
messages_30dNoMessages in the last 30 days (indexer key)
silence_hoursNoHours since the last message (null if never)
volume_ratio_bpsNo7d/baseline volume ratio (bps)
cadence_drift_bpsNoCadence drift vs 23-day baseline (bps)

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: the comparison window (7 vs 23 days), specific thresholds for 'moderate' and 'significant', and the 'unknown' case for new publishers. This enriches the agent's understanding of expected behavior and edge cases.

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 concise and well-structured: a single opening sentence states the core purpose, followed by a sentence on the computation method, then one on return values and intended use. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering read-only/idempotent safety, the description fully explains the tool's reasoning and result categories, which is sufficient context for a moderate-complexity tool. It covers the essential logic, edge cases, and usage intent without needing to explain return structure.

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 is 100% with descriptive parameter names and inline descriptions ('Publisher address to check' and 'Optional indexer URL override'). The tool description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 what it does: 'Get the content-drift signal for a publisher.' It specifies the exact computation (last 7 days vs 23-day baseline) and return categories. This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like byte_check_subscription or byte_get_publisher, which target different aspects of subscriptions or publisher data.

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 an explicit use case: 'Use this to detect when a publisher you subscribe to has pivoted content or gone dormant.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, but it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5 for explicit when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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