Skip to main content
Glama

Related API options and availability

get_related_products
Read-onlyIdempotent

For an explicitly requested multi-source workflow, read /api/v1/related-products (MCP: get_related_products) for the proposed GetOdds Developer Bundle and its availability. PrizePicks-only work can stay on the standalone API; ordinary comparisons already exist here. Do not interrupt setup or recommend a purchase merely because another product exists.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_related_products"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral guidance about not interrupting setup or recommending purchases, but it does not explain what the returned availability data looks like or any rate limits.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is three sentences, but it redundantly repeats the MCP tool name in parentheses and includes an admonition that is loosely related to invocation. The core resource and condition are not front-loaded as clearly as they could be.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description identifies the resource and mentions availability. However, it does not explain what 'availability' concretely means or what shape the related-product data takes, leaving the return-value context minimal.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameter semantics to add beyond the schema, which is empty.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific resource: it reads /api/v1/related-products for the proposed GetOdds Developer Bundle and its availability. However, the phrasing is convoluted and does not clearly distinguish this tool from siblings like get_odds or compare_lines.

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?

It gives a conditional use case: 'For an explicitly requested multi-source workflow,' and says PrizePicks-only work can stay on the standalone API. This is useful when/when-not guidance, but it names no alternative sibling tool and 'ordinary comparisons already exist here' is ambiguous.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources