Skip to main content
Glama

ScorpTech x402 Tools

Crc16

crc16
Read-onlyIdempotent

CRC-16 over text or hex bytes. Algorithms are CCITT-FALSE, ARC, XMODEM, KERMIT and MODBUS. The check string 123456789 is 29b1 in CCITT-FALSE. This is not CRC-32. Price: $0.001 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: POST https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/crc16

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "crc16"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hexNo
textNo
algorithmNoccitt-false

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds important non-schema context: pricing at $0.001 USDC per successful call, x402/Solana payment, and an alternate HTTPS endpoint, all of which materially affect invocation.

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 description is front-loaded with the core operation, then adds algorithms, a test vector, disambiguation, pricing, and endpoint. Most sentences earn their place, though the pricing/URL details make it slightly long for a simple checksum tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally state the return format. The test vector implies a hex checksum output, but precedence between hex and text inputs and error behavior remain unstated. Pricing and endpoint details compensate somewhat.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter semantics. It clarifies that input may be text or hex bytes and lists the algorithm names, but it does not explain whether hex and text are mutually exclusive, what happens if both or neither are supplied, or the expected hex input format.

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 states a specific operation and resource: compute CRC-16 over text or hex bytes. It names the supported algorithm variants and explicitly distinguishes itself from CRC-32, so an agent can identify the tool's exact purpose.

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?

It gives useful disambiguation with 'This is not CRC-32' and provides the payment/HTTPS context, but it does not state when an agent should choose this tool over sibling checksum or hashing tools, nor does it explain when not to use it.

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