Skip to main content
Glama

ScorpTech x402 Tools

Parking Shift

parking_shift
Read-onlyIdempotent

The total of parked spot minus preference. (1,1) shifts by 1. (2,1) shifts by 0. (1,2,1) shifts by 2. A list that is not a parking function is rejected. The list has 1 to 8 entries, each from 1 to 8. Price: $0.001 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: POST https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/parking-shift

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": {
      "prefs": "<prefs>"
    },
    "name": "parking_shift"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
prefsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond them: $0.001 USDC per successful call, x402/Solana payment mechanics, an HTTPS endpoint, and rejection of non-parking-function lists.

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 short and most sentences earn their place: examples clarify the shift values, constraints are stated compactly, and payment/endpoint details are relevant. The opening sentence is opaque and front-loads unclear semantics.

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?

It includes input constraints, examples, rejection behavior, and payment context, which is helpful for a one-parameter mathematical tool. However, with no output schema, it does not clearly state the return type or precisely define what a parking function is.

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 compensate. It does state the list has 1 to 8 entries, each from 1 to 8, and must be a parking function, but it does not define the 'prefs' parameter or explain the meaning of each preference value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence is an ambiguous definition ('The total of parked spot minus preference') rather than a clear verb+resource, though the examples and rejection sentence imply it computes a parking shift for a valid parking-function list. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings such as parking, parking_moved, parking_spots, or parking_witness.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives. The only usage condition is that a list which is not a parking function is rejected.

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