Skip to main content
Glama

Hof Q Sum

hof_q_sum
Read-onlyIdempotent

The sum of Hofstadter Q terms Q(1) through Q(n). The sum through Q(10) is 36, and the sum through Q(20) is 129. n runs from 1 to 100000. Price: $0.001 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: POST https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/hof-q-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": {
      "n": "<n>"
    },
    "name": "hof_q_sum"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), but the description adds real value beyond them: a per-call price ($0.001 USDC via x402 on Solana) and an equivalent HTTPS endpoint. It does not disclose return type or failure behavior, so it adds context without being rich.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the definition before the examples, then the range, then pricing and the alternate endpoint. No filler, though the endpoint URL is the least essential element for an MCP caller.

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, the description still conveys the return value as an integer sum via the two worked examples, and it covers the range limit and cost. Only the response envelope/format and error behavior are left unstated, which is minor for a single-argument pure function.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: n is defined as the upper index of the summed range, its domain 1-100000 is restated, and the two example sums show the semantics of the argument concretely.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: the cumulative sum of Hofstadter Q terms Q(1) through Q(n). The worked values (Q(10) sum = 36, Q(20) sum = 129) pin down exactly what is being aggregated, which distinguishes it in practice from the term-level sibling hof_q, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

The description never says when to pick this over the many adjacent siblings (hof_q for individual terms, hof_q_prefix, hofstadter_sum, hof_conway_sum). Usage is only inferable from the name and the formula given; there are no exclusions or routing hints.

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