Skip to main content
Glama

ScorpTech x402 Tools

Pdi Count

pdi_count
Read-onlyIdempotent

How many integers from 0 through n equal the sum of their digits each raised to k. For k=3, through 1 there are 2 and through 407 there are 6. For k=5, through 4150 there are 3 and through 4151 there are 4. n runs from 0 to 20000 and k runs from 1 to 10. Price: $0.001 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: POST https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/pdi-count

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>",
      "k": "<k>"
    },
    "name": "pdi_count"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kYes
nYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
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 material context: $0.001 USDC per successful x402/Solana call and an HTTPS endpoint. It does not detail failure/payment semantics beyond successful calls, but it adds meaningful behavioral details.

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 definition is front-loaded, followed by examples, bounds, cost, and endpoint. The paired examples are illustrative but somewhat repetitious; overall it remains compact for a math tool.

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 two-parameter read-only count with no output schema, the description covers the operation, valid ranges, examples, and payment/access context. Minor omissions such as explicit return type or error behavior are acceptable given the structured fields.

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 must carry parameter meaning. It defines n as the inclusive upper bound (0 through n) and k as the exponent in the digit-power sum, while restating ranges; both required parameters are understandable.

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 opening sentence defines a specific counting operation and the numeric condition, and examples plus domain bounds make it concrete. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling pdi, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as pdi. The n/k bounds imply valid inputs but do not route an agent among the many sibling math tools.

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