Skip to main content
Glama

PokerInk Poker Tools

by com.pokerink

calculate_pot_odds

Decide whether calling a bet is profitable. Returns the pot odds, the equity needed to break even, and — given an out count — the exact chance of hitting and a call/fold verdict. Use this instead of doing the arithmetic: the break-even share is call divided by (pot + bet + call), so a pot-sized bet needs 33.3% and a half-pot bet 25%, and computing it as bet/(pot+bet) overstates both. The chance of hitting is counted exactly over the unseen cards, not approximated by the Rule of 2 and 4, which overstates by nearly 6 points on a 15-out draw. Pair it with analyze_hand, which returns the out count for a hand.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
betYesThe bet you have to call.
potYesPot size before the bet, in any consistent unit.
outsNoCards that complete your hand. Optional — omit to get the price alone, with no verdict. analyze_hand reports this as total_outs.
streetNoRequired with outs: "flop" when two cards are still to come, "turn" when one is.
implied_extraNoExtra you expect to win on later streets if you hit. Optional, defaults to 0; it lowers the equity required.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return values, the exact break-even formula, the precise counting of unseen cards, and a known pitfall (bet/(pot+bet) overstates). It does not discuss error handling or edge cases, but the behavioral core is transparent.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Every sentence earns its place: the first sentence states purpose and outputs, the middle sentences give the exact formula and common errors, and the final sentence connects the tool to analyze_hand. The guidance is dense but highly relevant and front-loaded.

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?

The description covers purpose, outputs, parameter semantics, and the key workflow with analyze_hand. It is nearly complete, but it does not address how calculate_equity differs or when that sibling should be used instead, which leaves a small contextual gap.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant semantic value: it clarifies pot is before the bet, explains why the break-even share is call divided by (pot + bet + call), defines street in terms of remaining cards, and notes implied_extra lowers required equity. This goes well beyond the schema's simple field descriptions.

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 opens with a specific, decision-oriented statement: 'Decide whether calling a bet is profitable,' followed by exactly what the tool returns. It also distinguishes the tool from doing manual arithmetic or applying the Rule of 2 and 4, and names analyze_hand as the complementary tool for out counts.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly says to use this tool instead of doing the arithmetic and to pair it with analyze_hand for the out count. It implies when to call versus avoid it, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling calculate_equity or state when calculate_equity would be preferred.

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

All PokerInk Poker Tools 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool addresses a clearly distinct poker question: hand/draw identification, equity comparison between specific hands, and pot-odds call decision. There is no functional overlap between the three tools.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase snake_case, with 'analyze_hand' and two 'calculate_*' tools. The naming convention is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is a well-scoped count for a focused poker calculator server. Each tool covers an essential task without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the core poker workflow: reading a hand, comparing equity, and evaluating pot odds, with useful cross-references between tools. A minor gap is that equity only supports specific hands rather than ranges, and analyze_hand is limited to Texas Hold'em while calculate_equity also handles Omaha.

Resources