Skip to main content
Glama

Hamming Dist

hamming_dist
Read-onlyIdempotent

The Hamming distance of a and b: how many bit positions differ. 13 and 7 differ in 2 places. 0 and 0 differ in none. Both run from 0 to 999999999999999. Price: $0.001 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: POST https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/hamming-dist

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": {
      "a": "<a>",
      "b": "<b>"
    },
    "name": "hamming_dist"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
aYes
bYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior; the description adds crucial paid-call context: $0.001 USDC per successful call, x402 on Solana, and an HTTPS endpoint. It does not cover rate limits or payment failure handling, so it falls short of 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The definition and a concrete example are front-loaded, followed by range and payment details, with no wasted preamble. The second example ('0 and 0 differ in none') is slightly redundant, but the overall structure is efficient.

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-integer calculation with no output schema, the description supplies the definition, examples, bounds, cost, and alternate transport. It could explicitly state that the return value is the integer count, but that is strongly implied by the definition.

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%, and the description compensates only partially: it identifies a and b as operands and repeats the 0 to 999999999999999 bounds already present in the schema. It does not add per-parameter meaning beyond the symmetric definition; the examples help but remain minimal.

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 the exact operation and clarifies it as the count of differing bit positions, with examples. It could have explicitly named the hamming* sequence siblings to prevent confusion, but the phrase 'bit positions differ' already disambiguates the mathematical operation.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool versus bitwise alternatives or the many hamming_* siblings. The input range and examples describe constraints and behavior, not usage guidance.

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