Skip to main content
Glama

Smarandache Least

smarandache_least
Read-onlyIdempotent

The smallest positive integer m with S(m) = k. k=1 gives 1, k=6 gives 9, k=8 gives 32, k=9 gives 27, and k=11 gives 11. k runs from 1 to 15. Price: $0.001 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: POST https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/smarandache-least

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": {
      "k": "<k>"
    },
    "name": "smarandache_least"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful operational context: pricing at $0.001 USDC per successful call, x402/Solana payment, and an HTTPS endpoint. It does not explain failure behavior, but it contributes real information beyond the 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 definition is front-loaded, followed by useful examples, the domain constraint, and payment details. Every sentence has a purpose, though the example list and pricing/endpoint information make it somewhat dense.

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 tool with no output schema, the description supplies the operation, input range, sample outputs, price, and endpoint. The main missing piece is an explicit definition of S(m) and any out-of-range behavior, but the examples and schema bounds make it usable.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It defines k as the target Smarandache value, states the 1–15 range, and gives several concrete k-to-result examples. The only gap is that S(m) itself is not fully expanded.

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 operation: the smallest positive integer m satisfying S(m)=k, with worked examples that clarify the mapping. It does not distinguish this inverse Smarandache tool from sibling tools such as smarandache or smarandache_sum, and it leaves S(m) only implicitly defined.

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 input domain is made clear by 'k runs from 1 to 15' and the examples. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus related Smarandache siblings, and no when-not guidance; usage is only implied by the mathematical definition.

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