Skip to main content
Glama

ScorpTech x402 Tools

Pythag Gen

pythag_gen
Read-onlyIdempotent

The Pythagorean triple from m > n >= 1 and scale k >= 1. a is k(m^2-n^2), b is k(2mn), and c is k(m^2+n^2). primitive is true when k is 1, m and n are coprime, and they have opposite parity. Price: $0.001 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: POST https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/pythag-gen

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": {
      "m": "<m>",
      "n": "<n>",
      "k": "<k>"
    },
    "name": "pythag_gen"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kYes
mYes
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 declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the exact outputs (a, b, c, and the primitive flag condition) and notes the cost and HTTPS endpoint, though it omits rate limits or error behavior.

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 mathematical definition and compactly covers outputs, constraints, and access details in a few efficient sentences. The pricing and endpoint information is useful context, not fluff.

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?

Given a 3-parameter computational tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it defines the inputs, the outputs, the primitive condition, and the cost. It could mention error handling or rate limits, but those are minor omissions for a simple calculator.

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 the burden. It explicitly states the constraint m > n >= 1 and k >= 1, and provides formulas that define the role of each parameter, adding critical meaning not found in the bare schema.

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 clearly states it produces a Pythagorean triple from parameters m, n, and k, and provides the exact formulas. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool pythag_check, but the generation purpose is unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pythag_check. It only explains the mathematical operation, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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