Skip to main content
Glama

ScorpTech x402 Tools

Kaprekar Repdigit

kaprekar_repdigit
Read-onlyIdempotent

Whether the four-digit padding of n uses only one digit. 0, 1111, and 2222 do. 5, 111, and 6174 do not. n runs from 0 to 9999. Price: $0.001 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: POST https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/kaprekar-repdigit

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": "kaprekar_repdigit"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description usefully adds commercial context by stating the per-success price, the x402/Solana payment mechanism, and the HTTPS endpoint, which goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 predicate and follows with examples and range before pricing details. It is efficient overall, though the HTTPS endpoint is operational context rather than invocation guidance.

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 boolean predicate tool with annotations but no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it defines the input domain, gives clarifying examples, and states payment behavior. It could explicitly say the tool returns true/false, but the wording strongly implies that.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It compensates well by defining n as ranging from 0 to 9999 and by explaining the crucial four-digit padding transformation with concrete true/false examples.

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 predicate: whether the four-digit zero-padding of n uses only one digit. Examples such as 0, 1111, 2222 versus 5, 111, and 6174 make the exact semantic distinction clear and separate it from other Kaprekar-related siblings.

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?

The description gives the valid input range and examples, but it does not say when to use this tool versus a sibling such as kaprekar_kernel or kaprekar_step. There are no explicit inclusion or exclusion guidelines.

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