Skip to main content
Glama

Triangle Shape

triangle_shape
Read-onlyIdempotent

Classify a strict integer triangle. sides is equilateral, isosceles, or scalene. angles is acute, right, or obtuse, from comparing the squares of the sides. A degenerate triple is rejected. Price: $0.001 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: POST https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/triangle-shape

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": {
      "a": "<a>",
      "b": "<b>",
      "c": "<c>"
    },
    "name": "triangle_shape"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
aYes
bYes
cYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful invocation details beyond annotations: degenerate input rejection, output categories, pricing, payment network, and an HTTPS endpoint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core classification behavior and then adds only necessary invocation details. There is no redundant restatement of the schema or annotations.

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 simple three-parameter classifier with no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, output categories, rejection behavior, and payment/access details. The remaining gap is the lack of per-parameter explanation for a, b, and c.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the three undocumented parameters. It only implies that a, b, and c are triangle sides and that the triple must be non-degenerate; it does not map each parameter, explain ordering, or clarify the 1..1,000,000 bounds and triangle-inequality constraints.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: classify a strict integer triangle. It also specifies the two classification outputs, side type and angle type, which lets an agent distinguish this from adjacent math tools such as cosine_law or pythag_check.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear usage context by requiring a strict integer triangle and explicitly rejecting degenerate triples. It does not name sibling alternatives or describe when another triangle-related tool would be preferable, so it falls short of full when-to-use 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