Skip to main content
Glama

Period Double Sum

period_double_sum
Read-onlyIdempotent

The number of 1s in the first n period-doubling bits, from index 0 through n-1. The first 8 bits have three 1s, and the first 100 bits have 33. n runs from 0 to 999999999999999. Price: $0.001 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: POST https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/period-double-sum

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": "period_double_sum"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nYes

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?

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive traits. The description adds real context beyond them: paid access via x402 on Solana at $0.001 per successful call and an equivalent HTTPS endpoint. It does not describe the return shape, but the output is a single count and is implied.

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?

Front-loaded with the definition and examples, followed by the range and then pricing/endpoint. Every sentence is informative, though the pricing and URL detail are secondary and slightly dilute the core definition.

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 one-parameter pure-math tool with no output schema and strong annotations, the definition supplies enough: the semantics of n, its bounds, a sanity-check example, and access/payment requirements. Only the exact sibling relationship is missing.

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 the parameter. It explains that n indexes bit positions 0 through n-1 and repeats the legal bounds 0 to 999999999999999, and the two worked examples (first 8 bits → 3, first 100 → 33) pin down the exact convention, which matters for off-by-one correctness.

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?

Description states a specific computation: count of 1s in the first n period-doubling bits, indices 0 through n-1. It is clear what the tool computes, though it does not distinguish itself from the sibling period_double_prefix, which plausibly returns related prefix data.

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 statement of when to use this over period_double or period_double_prefix. The only implied guidance is the semantics of n itself, leaving the agent to infer the choice among siblings.

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