Skip to main content
Glama

Perfect Power

perfect_power
Read-onlyIdempotent

Whether n is a perfect power a^k with k at least 2. The base is the smallest such a, so the exponent is the largest. 16 is 2^4, 36 is 6^2, and 7 is not a perfect power. 0 and 1 use exponent 2. A leading zero is rejected. n has at most 80 digits. Price: $0.001 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: POST https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/perfect-power

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": "perfect_power"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial context beyond the annotations: canonical base selection, exponent convention, behavior for 0 and 1, leading-zero rejection, digit limit, pricing, and an alternate HTTPS endpoint. It does not contradict the read-only/idempotent annotations.

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 description is front-loaded with the definition and then edge cases and access details. It is somewhat dense with examples, pricing, and endpoint information, but each part is useful for this paid x402 tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple one-parameter predicate interface and lack of output schema, the description covers definition, examples, edge cases, input validation, cost, and alternate access. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by naming n, giving examples, rejecting leading zeros, and stating the 80-digit limit. The max-length constraint is already in the schema, but the leading-zero rule and edge-case semantics add real value.

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?

It states a specific predicate: whether n is a perfect power a^k with k >= 2, and defines the canonical base/exponent. The purpose is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as perfect_check, prime_power, or powerful.

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 mathematical definition and examples imply when the tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools. For a narrow predicate tool this is adequate but not strong routing 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