Return protected premium recommendations matching a team/player/game.
Multiple markets for the same matchup are returned together. Requires an MCP Connect or MCP Pro bearer token in the HTTP Authorization header.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| league | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. Description adds that multiple markets for the same matchup are returned together, and documents authentication requirements, providing value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. Efficiently conveys purpose, grouping behavior, and auth requirement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, auth, and grouping behavior. Missing parameter semantics reduces completeness. Output schema exists, so return value explanation is not needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%; description does not explain parameters. It only mentions 'matching a team/player/game', leaving query and league parameters underspecified. Should provide details on expected input values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it returns premium recommendations matching a team/player/game. It distinguishes from sibling get_game_recommendation by specifying 'premium', and notes multiple markets returned together.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description specifies required authorization (MCP Connect or Pro token), which provides clear context for when to use. It implies an alternative (non-premium) but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
19 tools is well-scoped for a sports betting analytics server, covering metadata, data status, schedules, projections, performance, subscriptions, and profiles without being excessive.
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.