Skip to main content
Glama

olympus-bets-analytics

by com.olympus-bets

get_premium_slate

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return today's protected premium slate for an entitled agent.

Requires ``Authorization: Bearer obmcp_...``. MCP Connect and MCP Pro are
both accepted. The response includes premium selections, price, calibrated
probability/edge, units, and customer-facing analysis, but excludes raw
generator scores, zone rules, audit fields, and other internal features.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
leagueNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description reinforces this by stating what the response includes and excludes, adding valuable context. The authorization requirement is also disclosed, though the description could mention rate limits or data freshness.

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?

The description is four sentences long and well-structured: purpose first, then authentication, then response details. It is concise and front-loaded, though it could be slightly more efficient by merging the first two sentences.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The description covers purpose, auth, and response content, but completely omits guidance on the two optional parameters. Given that an output schema exists, the return values are handled, but the missing parameter semantics severely limit completeness for a simple tool.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The input schema has two parameters (limit, league) with no descriptions, and the tool description provides no explanation of their purpose or effect. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so, leaving the agent to guess.

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 the action ('Return'), the resource ('today's protected premium slate'), and the intended audience ('entitled agent'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it returns a slate, not a game recommendation or history, and lists included/excluded features, leaving no ambiguity.

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 specifies the required authorization type and accepted MCP levels, giving clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative sibling tools for other use cases, which would improve guidance.

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