Skip to main content
Glama

olympus-bets-analytics

by com.olympus-bets

get_pick_history

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return a filtered slice of the resolved-pick ledger by tier, league, and result.

Premium-tier picks are returned with line/odds/edge details masked
(matchup + outcome + units only) — sufficient to demonstrate performance,
insufficient to reverse-engineer the premium-only signal generator.

Args:
    league: Optional league filter.
    tier: ``free`` for fully-public picks, ``premium`` for masked subscriber picks.
    result: WIN, LOSS, or PUSH.
    limit: Maximum rows (capped at 200).
    cursor: Zero-based result offset. Prefer get_track_record for new clients.
    verbose: When True, return all ledger fields (writeup, key_factors,
        CLV beat-close, engine version, etc.). Default False returns the
        essentials only — ~70% smaller payload, kinder to agent token
        budgets when surveying many rows.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tierNo
limitNo
cursorNo
leagueNo
resultNo
verboseNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: premium-tier masking limits visibility, verbose flag reduces payload by ~70%, limit is capped at 200, and cursor is zero-based. Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, and description adds valuable detail without contradiction.

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?

Well-structured with a concise opening, a important note on masking, and bullet points for parameters. Very informative but could be slightly trimmed; however, every sentence adds value.

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?

Given output schema exists, description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers filtering, pagination, masking, and verbose behavior comprehensively. Suitable for a filtered-list tool with 6 parameters and no required fields.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully explains all 6 parameters: tier (free/premium), league, result (WIN/LOSS/PUSH), limit (capped at 200), cursor (zero-based offset), and verbose (reduces payload). Adds concrete details like the 200 cap and payload reduction percentage.

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 clearly states it returns a filtered slice of the resolved-pick ledger by tier, league, and result. It distinguishes between free and premium tiers with masking, differentiating it from siblings like get_track_record and get_premium_history.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly recommends preferring get_track_record for new clients, providing a clear alternative. Also explains when to use the verbose flag for agent token budgets, giving practical usage context.

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

All olympus-bets-analytics toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but some overlap exists (e.g., get_todays_projections vs get_game_recommendation and get_track_record vs get_pick_history vs get_performance_summary). However, the detailed descriptions help differentiate them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent 'get_*' or 'search_*' verb_noun pattern with snake_case. The only deviation is 'search_entities', which is a natural fit for a search operation.

Tool Count5/5

19 tools is well-scoped for a sports betting analytics server, covering metadata, data status, schedules, projections, performance, subscriptions, and profiles without being excessive.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core analytics workflows (projections, track record, performance, methodology) plus supporting operations (brand, status, subscriptions, search). Minor gaps like league standings or team statistics are outside the primary scope.

Resources