Skip to main content
Glama

Prediction Markets Quant

by com.predictionmarketspicks

Fantasy Draft Board

draft_board
Read-only

The PredictionMarketsPicks 2026 fantasy football draft board (standard, half-PPR or full-PPR) — every player ranked, blending our projection model with consensus ADP, showing projected points, ADP, draft round, and a SLEEPER / BUST value flag. Filter by position (QB/RB/WR/TE/FLEX). Free without a key (a capped slice of the board, plus the model's strongest sleeper and bust calls from deeper in it). One email unlocks a much deeper board — nothing to install; Pro unlocks all of it plus boom/bust week odds per player and positional tier breaks. Use for "fantasy football rankings 2026", "who are the top RBs", "draft board", "best available by position".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax players to return, best first (default 50).
teamsNoLeague size (number of teams) for draft-round math. Overrides the platform default; falls back to 12.
scoringNoScoring format: standard, half_ppr (default), or ppr (full PPR). Overrides a platform preset. Works for Yahoo/ESPN/Sleeper defaults.
platformNoLeague platform — applies its default scoring, size, roster + best-ball settings (overridable by explicit scoring/teams). Underdog/DraftKings are best ball.
positionNoOptional position filter (FLEX = RB/WR/TE).

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the free tier (capped slice, strongest sleeper/bust calls) and the Pro unlock (full board, boom/bust odds, positional tiers). This goes beyond the annotation, even if the exact cap size is vague.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is verbose and marketing-heavy, including promotional phrases about email unlock and Pro benefits. The core functionality could be conveyed in two sentences, but it meanders into pricing and example queries. Several sentences add promotional value rather than operational clarity, reducing conciseness.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description effectively communicates the returned data fields (projected points, ADP, round, flags) and the free tier limitation. It covers the key behaviors and supports the optional parameters. While it does not mention pagination or exact result counts, it is sufficiently complete for a read-only tool with all-optional parameters.

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 parameters are well-documented. The description only adds context for position filtering (explicitly lists QB/RB/WR/TE/FLEX, and FLEX meaning is already in schema) and scoring formats, which duplicates schema. No extra parameter meaning beyond the schema is provided.

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 the tool returns a fantasy football draft board with rankings, projections, ADP, round, and sleeper/bust flags, and supports position filtering. It is unambiguous about its function, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like sleepers_and_busts or best_available, so it lacks sibling contrast.

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 provides example queries ('fantasy football rankings 2026', 'who are the top RBs', 'draft board', 'best available by position') that indicate when to use the tool. It also mentions the free tier and Pro unlock, implying usage limits. However, it does not explicitly state scenarios where alternative tools should be preferred.

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

All Prediction Markets Quant 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
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have clearly distinct domains (fantasy vs NFL vs commodities vs general mispricings), but the 'edge' family is crowded: calculate_ev, scan_mispricings, edge_alerts, find_arbitrage, commodity_edge, nfl_edge, and nfl_prop_edge all surface pricing edges in overlapping ways. Fantasy tools like best_available and who_do_i_draft also have very similar mid-draft recommendation purposes, though their inputs differ.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use lowercase snake_case and are readable, but they mix verb_noun patterns (calculate_ev, compare_players, scan_mispricings) with noun-phrase names (adp_market_gaps, edge_alerts, kelly_size, market_pulse). The style is consistent enough that an agent can predict the convention, with only minor deviations from a strict verb-first pattern.

Tool Count3/5

23 tools is on the heavy side for a single MCP server, though the scope is genuinely broad: prediction-market edge detection, position sizing, probability math, and fantasy football draft tools. It is not bloated enough to feel chaotic, but several tools could be consolidated or are tier-gated variants of the same underlying data.

Completeness4/5

The fantasy football surface covers the draft lifecycle well: rankings, player outlooks, comparisons, ADP gaps, and in-draft recommendations. The prediction-market side covers edge detection, EV, Kelly sizing, base-rate comparison, and arbitrage discovery, though it lacks direct market-price fetching or portfolio tracking—minor gaps that users can work around by supplying prices themselves.

Resources