Skip to main content
Glama

Leonardo

leonardo
Read-onlyIdempotent

The nth Leonardo number. L(0) and L(1) are 1, and L(n) = L(n-1) + L(n-2) + 1. L(4) is 9, and L(10) is 177. An optional modulus reduces the term, and zero is rejected. n runs from 0 to 4096. Past 15 digits the value is a decimal string. Price: $0.001 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: POST https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/leonardo

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": "leonardo"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nYes
modNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds material context: pricing, x402/Solana payment, an HTTPS alternative, and that results become decimal strings past 15 digits. It stops short of explaining error behavior beyond zero rejection.

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 definition and examples are front-loaded, with edge cases and pricing following compactly; every sentence adds useful operational or semantic detail.

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 two-parameter math lookup with no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly, including range limits, modulus behavior, and large-value formatting. The return type for values under 15 digits is only implied rather than stated.

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 parameter meaning, and it does explain n's definition, range, and examples plus the modulus reducing the term. It does not clarify that mod is a string up to 600 digits, leaving part of the schema implicit.

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 mathematical resource (the nth Leonardo number) with its recurrence and concrete examples, making it clearly distinct from generic arithmetic or other sequence tools.

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?

Gives useful context such as n's range, zero rejection, and optional modulus, but does not explicitly route the agent between this tool and siblings like leonardo_mod, leonardo_sum, leonardo_fib, or leonardo_index.

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