Skip to main content
Glama

ScorpTech x402 Tools

Stars Bars

stars_bars
Read-onlyIdempotent

The number of ways to place n identical items into k distinct bins, which is C(n+k-1, n). Three items in two bins can be placed in 4 ways. n runs from 0 to 1024 and k runs from 1 to 1024. Price: $0.001 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: POST https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/stars-bars

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": "stars_bars"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kYes
nYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds useful operational context: the $0.001 USDC per successful call x402/Solana payment and an HTTPS endpoint, plus valid input ranges. It does not explicitly describe the return type or error behavior, so it is not a 5.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loaded with the core definition and formula, followed by an example, bounds, and payment details. Four sentences, each adding useful information with no waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter math function, the description covers computation, an example, parameter meaning and ranges, cost, and transport endpoint. No output schema exists, but the return value is implied by 'number of ways'; nothing essential for calling it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

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 full burden of parameter meaning. It defines n as identical items and k as distinct bins, gives the formula relating them, and states both valid ranges (n 0-1024, k 1-1024), fully compensating for the schema gap.

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?

States exactly what the tool computes: the number of ways to place n identical items into k distinct bins, with formula C(n+k-1,n) and a concrete example. This is specific, but it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from overlapping siblings such as multichoose or other combinatorial counting tools.

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 mathematical definition implies when the tool is applicable, and the example helps interpretation. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative 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