Skip to main content
Glama

Delannoy Sum

delannoy_sum
Read-onlyIdempotent

The sum of Delannoy numbers D(m,0) through D(m,hi). The sum through D(4,4) is 501. m and hi run from 0 to 64. Past 15 digits the sum is a decimal string. Price: $0.001 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: POST https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/delannoy-sum

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>",
      "hi": "<hi>"
    },
    "name": "delannoy_sum"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mYes
hiYes

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 establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, while the description adds useful behavioral context: $0.001 USDC per successful x402/Solana call, an HTTPS endpoint, and that results past 15 digits are returned as decimal strings. It does not fully describe payment failure or authentication behavior beyond 'successful call'.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core definition and example, then adds range, output format, pricing, and endpoint details. Every sentence contributes operational or mathematical context, with no filler.

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 compute tool, the definition supplies purpose, range, an example, large-output formatting, payment cost, and an alternate HTTPS endpoint. It does not spell out small-output types or edge-case behavior, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 identifies m and hi through the notation D(m,0) through D(m,hi), repeats the 0 to 64 bounds already present in the schema, and provides an example D(4,4)=501, but it does not fully clarify edge cases or all parameter meaning.

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 a specific mathematical operation: summing Delannoy numbers D(m,0) through D(m,hi), and gives a concrete example. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings such as delannoy or delannoy_central, which keeps it from a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus adjacent sibling tools, nor when not to use it. Usage is only implied by the formula, example, and numeric bounds.

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