Skip to main content
Glama

Smooth

smooth
Read-onlyIdempotent

Whether n is y-smooth: its largest prime factor is at most y. 12 is 3-smooth and not 2-smooth. 1 is 1-smooth. n and y run from 1 to 1000000000000. Price: $0.001 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: POST https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/smooth

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>",
      "y": "<y>"
    },
    "name": "smooth"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nYes
yYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds crucial context beyond annotations: this is a paid call ($0.001 USDC per successful call via x402 on Solana) with an HTTPS alternative endpoint. That payment/access behavior is exactly what annotations can't convey.

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-loads the definition and examples, then appends range, price, and endpoint. Every sentence carries information; the pricing/endpoint line is a slightly separate concern but justified for a paid endpoint.

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?

For a 2-parameter predicate with no output schema, it provides meaning of both params, their full range, clarifying examples, and the payment/access mechanics. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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 burden, and it does: it defines n as the number and y as the smoothness bound (largest prime factor ≤ y), and states both range 1..10^12. Adds real meaning beyond the type/range in schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a precise verb-level definition: whether n is y-smooth (largest prime factor ≤ y). Concrete examples (12 is 3-smooth, not 2-smooth; 1 is 1-smooth) pin the semantics exactly and distinguish it from siblings like rough, powersmooth, largest_prime_factor.

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?

Usage is implied through the precise definition and examples, so an agent can infer when this check applies. But it never names when to prefer it over neighbors like rough or largest_prime_factor, nor any exclusion. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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