ScorpTech x402 API

Inet Checksum

inet_checksum

Read-onlyIdempotent

RFC 1071 internet checksum. Big-endian 16-bit words are added with end-around carry, then inverted. An odd final byte is padded with zero. The RFC example 0001 F203 F4F5 F6F7 is 220d. Price: $0.001 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: POST https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/inet-checksum

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "inet_checksum"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hex`	No
`text`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful operational context beyond annotations: pricing at $0.001 USDC per successful call via x402 on Solana and an equivalent HTTPS endpoint.

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 algorithm and example, then briefly adds payment and endpoint details. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition.

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 checksum tool with annotations, the algorithm behavior is well covered. However, with no output schema, the description does not clearly state the return format, and it leaves the input parameter contract underspecified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for two optional parameters, so the description must compensate. It provides a hex example but never explains the hex vs text parameters, whether they are mutually exclusive, precedence if both are supplied, text encoding, or max-length implications.

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 a specific algorithm and resource: RFC 1071 internet checksum, including end-around carry and padding rules. It is distinguishable from general checksum siblings by naming RFC 1071, but it does not explicitly contrast with nearby tools like crc16 or fletcher16.

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 explains the algorithm but gives no when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternative tools. An agent must infer that this is the right choice when RFC 1071 specifically is needed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All ScorpTech x402 API tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?