ScorpTech x402 API

Music Transpose

music_transpose

Read-onlyIdempotent

Move a written note by a named interval. The letter moves with the interval number, then the accidental is chosen to hit the semitones. A perfect third is rejected, and so is a quality that would need more than a double accidental. Up and down are the two directions. Price: $0.001 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: GET https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/music-transpose

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": {
      "note": "<note>",
      "quality": "<quality>",
      "number": "<number>",
      "dir": "<dir>"
    },
    "name": "music_transpose"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dir`	Yes
`note`	Yes
`number`	Yes
`quality`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: invalid interval spellings are rejected ('A perfect third is rejected'), qualities requiring more than a double accidental are rejected, the two directions, and a per-call price with x402/Solana payment plus an HTTPS fallback endpoint. It stops short of describing the output or the accepted note format.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the spelling rules and payment details in a compact four-sentence block. 'Up and down are the two directions' is slightly redundant with the enum, but overall the text is tight and earns its space.

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?

Annotations cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile and there is no output schema, so the description should carry the remaining burden. It does not explain what is returned (presumably the transposed note) or the note input format, both of which an agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it explains number/quality/dir semantics well: the letter moves with the interval number, the accidental is chosen to hit the semitones, and some quality-number combinations are invalid. However, the 'note' parameter's expected format (letter, accidental, octave) is never specified, leaving one of four required parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 verb and resource: 'Move a written note by a named interval,' which is unambiguously transposition. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as music_interval, music_scale, or music_chord, so an agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named despite several music-theory siblings existing. The rejection rules imply valid scope but do not tell the agent when to prefer this tool over music_interval or music_scale.

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?