byte_publish_data

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining what the action entails: 'Hashes the payload, records size on-chain, and settles the fee in USDC.' This is consistent with the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint in the annotations, and it discloses the side effects clearly.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value. It is concise without excessive detail, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's purpose and key behavior.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a write operation with fee settlement), the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: hashing, on-chain recording, fee settlement, and the private key requirement. The presence of an output schema and full parameter descriptions fills the remaining gaps, making this reasonably complete.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the input schema, so the description does not need to add parameter-level details. The description's mention of hashing and settling fees partially clarifies the purpose of 'data' and 'maxFee', but does not significantly exceed what the schema already provides. Thus, baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action: 'Publish data to a subscriber via the PayPerByte DataStream contract.' This is a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'subscribe' or 'buy_data'. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 that this tool is used to publish data to a subscriber, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It does mention a prerequisite ('Requires PRIVATE_KEY'), which provides some usage context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over other byte_* tools.

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