Skip to main content
Glama

ScorpTech x402 Tools

Hypothesis Test

hypothesis_test
Read-onlyIdempotent

Run a statistical significance test and get the statistic, p-value, effect size, confidence interval and a plain-English verdict — results match scipy.stats. Tests: Welch / Student two-sample t, paired t, one-sample t, one-proportion z, A/B test of two conversion rates (pooled z, lift, CI of the difference), chi-square goodness of fit and independence (Yates for 2×2, Cramér's V), one-way ANOVA (η²), Kruskal–Wallis, Mann–Whitney U (exact for small samples, rank-biserial r), Wilcoxon signed-rank (exact / permutation / normal), Pearson and Spearman correlation (Fisher-z CI) and Fisher's exact test. Two-sided or one-sided alternatives. Price: $0.003 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: POST https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/hypothesis-test

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": {
      "test": "<test>"
    },
    "name": "hypothesis_test"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
aNoSample A (or x for correlations, or the differences for wilcoxon)
bNoSample B (or y)
muNoHypothesised mean (one-sample t)
p0No
testYes
alphaNo
tableNoContingency table (rows of counts) for chi-square-independence / fisher-exact (2×2)
yatesNochi-square-independence: Yates continuity correction for 2×2 tables
groupsNoanova / kruskal-wallis: array of samples, or an object of named samples
trialsNo
trialsANo
trialsBNo
expectedNochi-square-gof expected counts or proportions (default: uniform)
observedNochi-square-gof observed counts
successesNo
successesANo
successesBNo
alternativeNotwo-sided
equalVarianceNot-test: Student (true) instead of Welch (false)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds substantive behavior: results mirror scipy.stats, output includes statistic/p-value/effect size/CI/plain-English verdict, small-sample tests switch to exact or permutation methods, and each successful call costs $0.003 USDC via x402 on Solana with an HTTPS mirror. What is left unsaid is error behavior (validation failures, whether a failed call is billed) and any rate limits.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Purpose and outputs are front-loaded, which is good, but the middle third is a single dense run-on list of fourteen tests that substantially restates the schema's test enum. The pricing and endpoint tail is useful but appended without structure; the whole thing would scan far better as a short purpose sentence plus terse grouped bullets.

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?

With 19 parameters, 47% schema coverage and no output schema, the description does well to spell out the returned fields and the payment model. The remaining gap is the per-test argument contract: an agent cannot reliably map a chosen enum value to the right subset of a/b, groups, observed/expected, table, successes/trials, which is the main failure mode for this tool.

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 only 47% across 19 parameters, so the description has to carry weight and it partially does: 'A/B test of two conversion rates' implies successes/trials, 'two-sided or one-sided' maps to the alternative enum, and effect-size names hint at the relevant test families. However, it never disambiguates the parallel parameter sets (trials vs trialsA/trialsB, successes vs successesA/successesB, p0 for the one-proportion z) nor which argument bundle each of the 14 test values requires.

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 a specific verb+resource ('run a statistical significance test') and then enumerates exactly which tests and effect-size measures are supported, so an agent can tell instantly whether its planned analysis is covered. The scope is unambiguous against a sibling list dominated by number-theory helpers, and the sibling nearest in domain (stats_describe, regression_fit) is clearly outside this tool's remit.

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?

The enumeration of tests implies which situations apply, and 'two-sided or one-sided alternatives' signals the alternative modes, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance and no mention of the nearest siblings (stats_describe for descriptives, regression_fit for modeling). An agent must still infer test selection and cannot tell from the description alone what to do if it merely wants summary statistics.

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