infersports

Get Match Odds

get_match_odds

Read-only

Get all current odds for a match across bookmakers.

Args:
    event_id: event id from find_match / list_today_matches (e.g. "evt_…").
    markets: optional filter — any of "1x2", "asian_handicap", "totals".
    bookmakers: optional filter — bookmaker keys, e.g. ["pinnacle", "crown"].
    period: optional — "full_time" or "half_time" (default: both).
    format: odds format — decimal | hk | malay | american | indonesian | probability.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`format`	No	decimal
`period`	No
`markets`	No
`event_id`	Yes
`bookmakers`	No

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description matches this by stating 'Get all current odds.' The description adds parameter details but no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is concise, uses a clear Args structure, and front-loads the purpose. 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?

Given no output schema, the description could mention the return format (e.g., odds data structure). However, it sufficiently covers input parameters and context for usage.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema), so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose, format options (e.g., 'decimal | hk | malay'), and examples (e.g., '["pinnacle", "crown"]').

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 clearly states 'Get all current odds for a match across bookmakers,' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current odds'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_result' or 'get_opening_line' by focusing on odds retrieval.

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 clear context by referencing 'event id from find_match / list_today_matches' and explaining optional filters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.

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?