Skip to main content
Glama

ScorpTech x402 Tools

Alternating Sum

alternating_sum
Read-onlyIdempotent

The sum of the alternating factorials from 1 through n. Through 1 it is 1, through 3 it is 7, through 5 it is 127, through 6 it is 746, and through 8 it is 41066. n runs from 1 to 18. Price: $0.001 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: POST https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/alternating-sum

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": "alternating_sum"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare it read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: a per-call cost ($0.001 USDC via x402/Solana) and an alternate HTTPS endpoint, both important for deciding whether/how to invoke.

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?

The core definition is front-loaded and the range follows immediately. The five worked examples are somewhat voluminous but genuinely useful for verifying results; the pricing/endpoint info is placed last, which is reasonable.

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?

For a simple single-parameter math tool with no output schema, the description supplies the computation, the valid input range, example outputs, and payment/endpoint details. Nothing essential for calling it correctly is missing, though a note on the return shape would round it out.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and only one parameter exists; the description compensates by stating 'n runs from 1 to 18', giving the parameter concrete meaning. With a single fully-typed param and this added range context, this is close to the 1-param baseline of 4.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a precise mathematical computation ('sum of the alternating factorials from 1 through n') that is specific and distinguishes it from a plain factorial or generic alternating sum. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from (e.g., alt_sum, alternating_factorial), but the definition itself is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

Provides the domain constraint ('n runs from 1 to 18') but offers no when-to-use/when-not guidance or pointers to alternative sibling tools for related sequences. The agent must infer applicability entirely.

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