Skip to main content
Glama

Leyland

leyland
Read-onlyIdempotent

The Leyland number x^y + y^x. 2 and 2 give 8, 2 and 3 give 17, and 3 and 3 give 54. x and y each run from 2 to 20. 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/leyland

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": {
      "x": "<x>",
      "y": "<y>"
    },
    "name": "leyland"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xYes
yYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses useful behavior: values past 15 digits are returned as decimal strings, and each successful call costs $0.001 USDC via x402 on Solana. It also gives the equivalent HTTPS endpoint, though it does not describe error or payment-failure behavior.

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 is front-loaded, with examples, bounds, output formatting, pricing, and endpoint following logically. It is dense but contains little obvious waste for an agent that needs to call the paid endpoint correctly.

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-parameter pure math tool with no output schema, the description provides enough to call it correctly: formula, input bounds, examples, output string behavior past 15 digits, and payment/endpoint details. Minor gaps remain around return typing below the 15-digit threshold and error handling.

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?

With zero schema descriptions, the description compensates by explaining that x and y are used in x^y + y^x and each ranges from 2 to 20. The examples clarify how inputs map to outputs, though it does not explicitly note that x and y are interchangeable.

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 defines the exact mathematical operation as x^y + y^x and gives concrete example results, making the tool's purpose clear. It does not start with an explicit action verb, but the formula and examples distinguish it from the many sibling math functions.

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 does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or routing guidance. The domain constraint is stated, but that is a parameter rule rather than 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