Moved to a server instead of a connector
Use when analyzing how betting lines moved over time. Returns time-series snapshots grouped by bookmaker. Most expensive tool (25 cr). If you only need current lines, use get_odds (10 cr) instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| game_id | Yes | NHL game ID | |
| bookmaker | No | Filter by specific bookmaker key (lowercase) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| game_id | Yes | ||
| movement | Yes | ||
| away_team | Yes | ||
| home_team | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / movement / additionalProperties / items / properties / sourceAdded value: +{
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds two traits not present in structured fields: cost (25 cr, the most expensive tool) and the result organization (time-series grouped by bookmaker). It stops short of stating time range, snapshot density, or pagination limits, which would matter for an expensive analytics call.
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?
Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return shape, cost, and alternative all front-loaded with zero filler.
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?
With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it still summarizes the grouping. Purpose, cost, and sibling routing are all covered for a low-complexity two-parameter read tool.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there including the lowercase bookmaker key convention. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('how betting lines moved over time') and specifies the return shape ('time-series snapshots grouped by bookmaker'). The sibling get_odds is explicitly named as the contrasting tool, so an agent can route between them without opening either schema.
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?
Explicit when-to-use ('analyzing how betting lines moved over time'), explicit when-not plus alternative ('If you only need current lines, use get_odds (10 cr) instead'), and cost differentials to support the choice. This is textbook routing guidance.
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.