Skip to main content
Glama

ScorpTech x402 Tools

Dyck Word

dyck_word
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check a Dyck word of parentheses and report its semilength and height. The empty word is valid. A prefix that goes negative, or a word that does not close, is rejected. Price: $0.001 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: POST https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/dyck-word

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": {
      "word": "<word>"
    },
    "name": "dyck_word"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
wordYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), the description discloses substantive operational facts: the empty word is valid, negative prefixes and unclosed words are rejected, and each successful call costs $0.001 USDC via x402 on Solana with an HTTPS mirror endpoint. That is exactly the payment/auth and edge-case context the annotations do not cover.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three tight sentences: purpose first, acceptance rules second, cost and endpoint last. Nothing is padded and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 helpfully names the return values and covers validity and pricing. The one gap is what a rejected word actually returns (error shape versus a boolean), which an agent would want to know before calling.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does, by stating the input is a word of parentheses and that the empty word is legal, but it does not restate the max length of 400 or the character constraint explicitly beyond 'parentheses'.

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 states a specific verb and resource — check a Dyck word of parentheses — and names the returned values (semilength and height). It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the large set of sibling math tools, which the rubric requires for 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 only implied: the tool obviously applies to parenthesis strings, and the empty-word/negative-prefix rules hint at its acceptance domain. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no statement of when not to use it, and no named alternative.

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