Skip to main content
Glama

Juggler Max

juggler_max
Read-onlyIdempotent

The largest term on the juggler path from n down to 1. 1 peaks at 1, 3 peaks at 36, and 9 peaks at 140. n runs from 1 to 20. Price: $0.001 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: POST https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/juggler-max

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": "juggler_max"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds genuinely new context: a $0.001 USDC x402 payment per successful call and the 1–20 domain limit, which an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Three short sentences: definition first, illustrative examples second, constraints and cost last. No waste, well front-loaded.

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 that a single integer (the peak term) is returned, plus cost and domain. Adequate for a one-parameter deterministic math tool; only explicit return-type phrasing is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load: it explains n as the starting value of the juggler path and restates the 1–20 bounds already in the schema, but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond that.

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 computed quantity ('largest term on the juggler path from n down to 1') with worked examples (1→1, 3→36, 9→140), which unambiguously separates it from siblings like juggler_chain or juggler_steps.

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?

The n range (1 to 20) and pricing are given, implying when the tool is callable, but there is no guidance on when to pick this over juggler_chain/juggler_max-adjacent siblings. The HTTPS endpoint note is an alternate transport, not an alternate tool.

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