HaterPicks API

Get live odds

get_odds

Read-onlyIdempotent

Live odds for one sport across Australian bookmakers: one row per game, market and line, with each bookmaker's decimal price for every side. Narrow with search (team or player) and market. Free keys get game lines (head-to-head, line, total); player-prop rows need Starter or higher. Works on every plan, Free included. Counts as one API call (GET /api/v1/odds?sport=).

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": {
      "sport": "<sport>"
    },
    "name": "get_odds"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	How many rows to return (default 25, at most 100). Use search or market to narrow first.
`sport`	Yes	Sport code, upper case. list_sports_and_bookmakers lists every code and its markets.
`market`	No	A market key such as AFL_H2H or NBA_POINTS, or just its ending: H2H, TOTAL, LINE, SPREAD, POINTS, DISPOSALS.
`search`	No	Team, player or matchup words, e.g. "Collingwood" or "Lakers Celtics". Every word must match.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: tier gating on player-prop rows, that it works on every plan including Free, and that it costs exactly one API call against GET /api/v1/odds?sport=. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, which keeps it from a 5.

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 core purpose and row shape, then plan gating, then cost. Dense but nearly every clause carries information an agent needs. The final endpoint/call-count sentence is slightly tacked on but still earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return shape (one row per game/market/line with per-bookmaker decimal prices). Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only pagination/ordering behavior is left unstated.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including the sport enum and market key examples. The description only restates that search and market narrow results, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('Live odds for one sport across Australian bookmakers') and even defines the row grain: one row per game, market and line with each bookmaker's decimal price per side. That grain definition distinguishes it from siblings like get_best_price and get_player_props without needing to name them.

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?

Gives concrete narrowing guidance ('Narrow with search (team or player) and market') and a clear plan-based condition: free keys get game lines, player-prop rows need Starter or higher. It stops short of explicitly routing to alternatives such as get_player_props or get_best_price when those would be the better call.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All HaterPicks API tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?