Skip to main content
Glama

ScorpTech x402 Tools

Wagstaff Prime

wagstaff_prime
Read-onlyIdempotent

Whether the Wagstaff number (2^p + 1)/3 is prime. p=3, 5, 7, and 31 are. p=29 is not. An even number or a composite is rejected. p runs from 3 to 31. This checks the given prime. Price: $0.001 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: POST https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/wagstaff-prime

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": {
      "p": "<p>"
    },
    "name": "wagstaff_prime"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds useful context: pricing, endpoint, valid p range, rejection of even/composite p, and concrete examples. It stops short of stating the exact return format 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 purpose is front-loaded and the examples and constraints are relevant. A few phrases such as 'This checks the given prime' are slightly redundant, but overall it is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter 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 boolean-style primality check with no output schema, the description supplies enough context to call the tool correctly, including range, examples, rejection rules, and pricing. The main remaining gap is that it does not explicitly describe the return value.

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?

The single parameter p has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so well by specifying the p range, giving examples, and indicating that even or composite p values are rejected, though it could explicitly say p must be prime.

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 states a precise mathematical predicate: checking whether the Wagstaff number (2^p + 1)/3 is prime. It clearly identifies the resource and operation, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool 'wagstaff' or generic prime-checking 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?

Usage is implied by the description and examples, and it notes that p runs from 3 to 31 with even or composite p rejected. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'wagstaff' or 'prime_check'.

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