Skip to main content
Glama

NBA DraftKings lineup optimizer

invoke_nba_optimizer
Read-onlyIdempotent

Builds DraftKings NBA classic lineups from the BankrollSZN projections, with locks (any order, up to all 8 players), excludes, unique lineups, a salary floor, an ownership cap and a per-team cap. contest_type (cash, single, 3max, 20max, 150max) applies the same preset as the site optimizer: mode, ownership penalty, salary floor and that contest type's ownership. Cash scores projection plus 0.25 x floor. Returns DK ids in slot order.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lockNo
modeNo
excludeNo
lineupsNo
slate_idNo
min_salaryNo
min_uniqueNo
own_lambdaNo
contest_typeNoPreset from the site NBA optimizer. Explicit mode, own_lambda and min_salary override it.
max_per_teamNo
questionableNoHow to score a questionable player. play (default): his if-he-plays line and ownership. expected: play chance x if-he-plays line. out: leave him out.
max_total_ownNo
cash_floor_weightNoCash only: floor points added per point of floor. Default 0.25.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / questionable / description
      Previous value: -"How to score a questionable player. play (default): his if-he-plays line. expected: play chance x if-he-plays line. out: leave him out."New value: +"How to score a questionable player. play (default): his if-he-plays line and ownership. expected: play chance x if-he-plays line. out: leave him out."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / questionable
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "How to score a questionable player. play (default): his if-he-plays line. expected: play chance x if-he-plays line. out: leave him out.",
      +  "enum": [
      +    "play",
      +    "expected",
      +    "out"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / cash_floor_weight
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Cash only: floor points added per point of floor. Default 0.25.",
      +  "type": "number"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / contest_type
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Preset from the site NBA optimizer. Explicit mode, own_lambda and min_salary override it.",
      +  "enum": [
      +    "cash",
      +    "single",
      +    "3max",
      +    "20max",
      +    "150max"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: contest_type applies the site preset (mode, ownership penalty, salary floor, contest ownership), explicit parameters override it, and cash mode scores projection plus 0.25 x floor. It does not mention runtime, lineup generation limits, or failure modes if constraints are infeasible.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler and the core purpose is front-loaded. The second sentence stacks several preset/formula clauses, making it slightly heavy to parse but every clause adds real information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 13-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers most constraints but omits how to obtain slate_id and player identifiers for lock/exclude, and does not state whether lineups are returned as a list or aggregated string. Adequate, but an agent still has unresolved questions before a first call.

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?

With only 23% schema description coverage across 13 parameters, the description carries most of the load and does so for locks, excludes, unique lineups, salary floor, ownership cap, per-team cap, and contest_type override semantics. Still unexplained are slate_id (source and format), the lineups count, and the exact id format expected by lock/exclude.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Builds DraftKings NBA classic lineups') and the data source ('BankrollSZN projections'), which cleanly separates it from sibling tools like invoke_nba_projections, invoke_nba_player_pool, or the other sports' optimizers. Roster size (8 players) and output ('DK ids in slot order') are also stated.

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 only implied: it's clear you call it to construct lineups, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention of an alternative (e.g. build manually from invoke_nba_projections), and no prerequisites such as where slate_id or player ids must come from. The contest_type sentence explains behavior, not tool selection.

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