Skip to main content
Glama

Gray Encode

gray_encode
Read-onlyIdempotent

Encode a non-negative integer as a binary reflected Gray code. The code is n xor (n shifted right by one). Zero stays zero, and a negative integer is rejected. Price: $0.001 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: POST https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/gray-encode

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>"
    },
    "name": "gray_encode"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent read-only operation. The description adds useful behavior beyond them: the exact computation, zero/negative handling, per-success price, x402/Solana payment context, and an HTTPS alternative. It does not detail payment/auth mechanics or output format, so 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 purpose and formula, then constraints and payment/endpoint details; every sentence is short and relevant. No filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple one-param tool with rich annotations but no output schema, the description covers input edge cases and cost. However, it never states the return representation (integer vs binary string), which is important without an output schema.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry semantics. It clarifies that n is a non-negative integer and that negatives are rejected, but it does not reconcile the schema's string pattern/max length or explain leading signs/zeros, leaving some ambiguity.

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 ('Encode') and resource ('non-negative integer as a binary reflected Gray code'), with the formula and edge-case behavior making clear it is the encoding counterpart to gray_decode/gray_bits siblings.

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?

No explicit when-to-use/when-not-use guidance or alternative tools are named. It states a prerequisite (non-negative input) and rejection behavior, but that is input validation rather than routing guidance relative to gray_decode, gray_bits, gray_next, etc.

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