ScorpTech x402 Tools

Amicable

amicable

Read-onlyIdempotent

Whether n is amicable, and its partner when it is. The partner of 220 is 284, and the partner of 284 is 220. A perfect number such as 6 is not amicable, and then the partner is 0. n runs from 1 to 1000000. Price: $0.001 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: POST https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/amicable

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": "amicable"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`n`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description earns credit for adding genuinely new context: return semantics (partner value, 0 for perfect numbers) plus the x402/Solana pricing ($0.001 USDC per successful call) and an HTTPS alternative endpoint. These are exactly the operational details annotations can't convey. It stops short of a 5 because it doesn't explain failure/edge behavior at the lower/upper bounds or format of the response beyond the partner.

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 predicate and return semantics are front-loaded, followed by concrete examples (220<->284) that clarify the concept usefully. The pricing/endpoint sentences are operational but relevant. Slightly redundant repetition of the 220/284 pair keeps it from a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain the return, and it does: a boolean-style amicability answer plus the partner value, including the 0 convention for perfect numbers. Combined with the domain bound, this is sufficient for an agent to call and interpret results; a bit more on the response structure or error cases would complete it.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does clarify that n is the value tested and that the domain is 1..1000000. However, that range merely restates the schema's minimum/maximum, and it adds little about n's meaning beyond the name. Baseline 3 for a single fully-constrained integer parameter.

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?

The description opens with a specific predicate-and-return statement: 'Whether n is amicable, and its partner when it is.' That is a clear verb+resource and clearly identifies what the tool returns. It does not name the closely related sibling (betrothed) or distinguish itself from it, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the definition itself (check amicability of an integer in [1,1000000]) but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or pointer to alternatives such as betrothed. The statement that perfect numbers are not amicable and yield partner 0 is the closest thing to guidance.

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

All ScorpTech x402 Tools tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?