infersports

Compare Lines

compare_lines

Read-only

Compare one market across all bookmakers for a match.

Returns each book's quote line-by-line, the consensus line, the best price per outcome, each
book's overround, and de-vigged fair odds from the sharpest (lowest-margin) book.

Args:
    event_id: event id (e.g. "evt_…").
    market_type: "1x2", "asian_handicap" (default) or "totals".
    period: "full_time" (default) or "half_time".
    format: display odds format (analytics are computed in decimal regardless).
    verbosity: "full" (default) or "terse". "terse" drops the per-book ``books`` array (the bulk
        of the payload) and returns only the worked answer (best_prices / consensus_line /
        fair_odds / summary).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`format`	No	decimal
`period`	No	full_time
`event_id`	Yes
`verbosity`	No	full
`market_type`	No	asian_handicap

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with this. It adds behavioral context: output structure, the 'terse' verbosity option, and that analytics are computed in decimal regardless of format. This goes beyond annotations.

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 well-structured with a one-line summary, bulleted outputs, and an Args block. It could be slightly more concise, but every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Without an output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values. It covers the terseness option. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., event_id must exist) or edge cases, but overall it is fairly complete for a read-only tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: event_id, market_type (with examples '1x2', 'asian_handicap', 'totals'), period, format, and verbosity (including what 'terse' does). This adds meaning beyond the schema's types and defaults.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Compare one market across all bookmakers for a match.' It then enumerates the specific outputs (lines, consensus, best price, overround, de-vigged odds), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like compare_prob or get_match_odds.

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 explains what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., compare_prob, get_match_odds). There is no 'use this when' or exclusionary advice.

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

All infersports tools Inspect

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

A4.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: compare_lines contrasts bookmakers, compare_prob evaluates external probabilities, find_arbitrage detects arbitrage opportunities, find_match resolves fixtures, etc. Even related tools like get_sharp_line (one-call line) and compare_lines (event_id-based comparison) are complementary rather than overlapping. No ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., compare_lines, find_match, list_bookmakers). Verbs like compare, find, get, list, scan, score are uniform. No mixing of conventions or vague names.

Tool Count5/5

With 17 tools covering fixture discovery, odds retrieval, comparisons, value/arb detection, line movement, results, and slate scanning, the count is well-scoped for a sports betting odds API. No unnecessary tools, and the set feels complete without being bloated.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: find matches (find_match, list_events, list_today_matches), get odds (get_match_odds, get_sharp_line, compare_lines), detect value/arb (find_value, find_arbitrage, scan_slate), analyze lines (get_opening_line, explain_handicap, score_prob), and retrieve results (get_result, list_results). No obvious gaps for the stated read-only odds analysis domain.

Resources

Need Help?