Skip to main content
Glama

ScorpTech x402 Tools

Abundance

abundance
Read-onlyIdempotent

sigma(n) minus 2n. A perfect number gives 0, an abundant number gives a positive value, and a deficient number gives a negative value. 12 gives 4, 6 gives 0, 10 gives -2, and 1 gives -1. n runs from 1 to 10000. Price: $0.001 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: POST https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/abundance

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "n": "<n>"
    },
    "name": "abundance"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real extra context: the bounded domain (1..10000), a per-call pricing model, and an alternate HTTPS endpoint. It stops short of describing response format or error conditions, but the added operational context is substantive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the formula, followed by worked examples, domain, pricing, and endpoint. Each sentence earns its place; the domain range mildly duplicates the schema but is reasonable to restate.

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?

No output schema exists, and the examples (12→4, 6→0, 10→-2, 1→-1) effectively communicate the return value. Combined with domain and pricing, an agent has nearly everything needed, though response type (integer vs object) could be explicit.

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?

Single param n with 0% schema description coverage; the description compensates by stating 'n runs from 1 to 10000', matching the schema's min/max, but adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond repeating the range constraint.

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?

States the exact computation (sigma(n) minus 2n) and how to interpret its sign (perfect=0, abundant=positive, deficient=negative). This is more specific than the name/title alone and lets an agent recognize the tool's output unambiguously.

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?

Implied usage through the sign interpretation, but the description never routes the agent versus nearby siblings like abundancy, deficiency, or perfect_check. No explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources