Skip to main content
Glama

Fubini Mod

fubini_mod
Read-onlyIdempotent

The nth Fubini number mod m. The modulus is a positive decimal integer, and zero is rejected. n runs from 0 to 20. The residue is smaller than the modulus. Price: $0.001 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: POST https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/fubini-mod

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>",
      "mod": "<mod>"
    },
    "name": "fubini_mod"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nYes
modYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, yet the description adds real context: the x402 payment model ($0.001 USDC per successful call on Solana) and an HTTPS fallback endpoint. It also states the output is a residue smaller than m, which annotations cannot express. Only a note on failure/refund behavior is missing.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the definition, then constraints, then pricing and transport. Nearly every sentence earns its place, though the HTTPS endpoint sentence could arguably be a separate field.

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?

With no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description carries the full burden and mostly meets it: input ranges, modulus rules, the return-value shape (residue < m), and the payment/transport model are all covered. Minor gap is error behavior for out-of-range n.

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 compensate. It does: 'the modulus is a positive decimal integer, and zero is rejected' and 'n runs from 0 to 20' explain both parameters beyond the raw min/max/pattern constraints, though it does not clarify the 600-digit string form explicitly.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource: computes the nth Fubini number modulo m. The 'mod' qualifier distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling fubini (which returns the raw number) and from fubini_sum.

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?

Gives domain constraints (n in 0..20, mod must be positive, zero rejected) which implicitly frame when the tool applies, but never names alternatives like fubini or fubini_sum or says when to pick one over the other.

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