DeepChamp for Agents

Parlay calculator

calc_parlay

Read-onlyIdempotent

Combined price, and combined probability if you supply yours, for two to twenty legs. Arithmetic on your own numbers only: nothing is stored and no outside data is read. Research intelligence (probabilities, factors, context), not winning picks. Price: Free, no signup. Research and information, not betting advice. No outcomes are guaranteed. Adults 21+ only, where legal. Problem gambling help: 1-800-MY-RESET.

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": {
      "legs": "<legs>"
    },
    "name": "calc_parlay"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`legs`	Yes	Two to twenty legs.
`stake`	No	Optional stake; when given the response includes the payout.
`visual`	No	Optional. How to present the result: auto (default, chosen by client), image (picture and link), text (terminal chart), none (data only).
`harness`	No	Optional display hint. It changes the output format only, never access, price or limits.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No
`meta`	No
`error`	No	Failure only: code, message, request_id, billable (always false).
`visual`	No
`billing`	No	Always free for the calculators: status free, price_micros 0.
`rest_url`	No
`compliance`	No
`continue_url`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is mostly covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: nothing is stored, no outside data is read, it is free with no signup, and it is research rather than betting advice. It does not describe rate limits or return format, but the output schema and annotations reduce the burden.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good. However, the description becomes bloated with repeated legal and compliance language: 'Research intelligence... not winning picks,' 'Research and information, not betting advice,' and 'No outcomes are guaranteed' all convey overlapping disclaimers. The core tool behavior could be stated more tightly.

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 calculator with four parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the calculation scope, the two-to-twenty leg limit, the optional probability behavior, data handling, and access constraints. It does not explain stake payout or visual output in prose, but those are documented in the schema and output schema.

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 the schema already documents the parameters, including legs, price formats, probability, stake, visual, and harness. The description adds the two-to-twenty leg range and the fact that combined probability appears if the user supplies probabilities, but most of that repeats schema constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states that this tool computes combined price and, when supplied, combined probability for a parlay of two to twenty legs. It distinguishes itself from data-gathering tools by saying it does arithmetic on the user's own numbers only and reads no outside data. It stops short of naming a specific sibling alternative, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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 description implies the tool is for calculating a parlay from user-supplied odds and optional probabilities, not for scanning prices or evaluating expected value. It does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus calc_best_price, calc_ev_scan, or calc_fair_value. The usage context is inferable but not directly guided.

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

All DeepChamp for Agents 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?