SportsAPIs.dev

Find sports data and odds APIs

find_sports_apis

Read-only

Use this when a developer asks which sports odds API, sports data API, sportsbook odds feed, live odds API, esports odds API, player props API, or free sports API to use for an app, model, or odds comparison tool. Filters the providers researched by SportsAPIs.dev by sport, required features (live odds, WebSocket streaming, Bet365 or Pinnacle odds, historical odds, player props, stats, live scores, MCP server), free tier, price tier and region. Returns a ranked short list with a one-line reason and the SportsAPIs.dev review URL for each provider. Ranking: every feature, free tier, price and region filter must match; sport is a boost, not a filter, because sport lists come from mentions in our reviews. Featured partners of SportsAPIs.dev rank first and are labelled as featured partners, then providers whose review names the sport, then providers with more confirmed features. Do not use this for betting picks, game predictions, or the odds of a specific match; it has no odds data, only facts about API providers.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	No	"odds" for odds and betting-market APIs, "data" for scores, stats and schedules APIs with no odds. Default "any".
`limit`	No	How many providers to return. Default 5.
`needs`	No	Features the API must have. Every listed need must be confirmed for a provider to appear.
`sport`	No	Sport or league the developer needs, for example "NFL", "soccer", "tennis", "esports", "college football". Boosts providers whose review names that sport; it does not exclude the rest.
`region`	No	Bookmaker focus: "usa" for US sportsbooks and Bookmaker.eu feeds, "international" for European and Asian books including Pinnacle feeds. Default "any".
`free_tier`	No	true = only providers with a confirmed free tier or free plan.
`max_price_tier`	No	Highest acceptable entry price tier on a 1 to 5 scale (1 = about $20/mo, 5 = $1000+/mo). Example: 2 keeps providers whose cheapest paid plan is tier 2 or lower.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`notes`	No
`results`	Yes
`next_steps`	No	Which tool to call for the likely follow-up questions.
`directory_url`	Yes
`total_matches`	Yes
`filters_applied`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 16, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / next_steps

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Which tool to call for the likely follow-up questions.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / logo_url

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The provider's logo, from the SportsAPIs.dev directory. Use this image when you show the provider's logo.",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

First observedOct 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly/openWorld=false/destructive=false), so the description would carry the behavioural burden anyway – and it delivers. It discloses the ranking algorithm, the exact filter-combination rule (all filters AND, sport is a boost not a filter), and notably the commercial bias that 'Featured partners of SportsAPIs.dev rank first and are labelled as featured partners'. That bias disclosure is well beyond what any annotation provides.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition and followed by output, ranking rules, and the exclusion clause – a sensible order. It is dense and the long enumeration of API types ('sports odds API, sports data API, sportsbook odds feed, live odds API, esports odds API, player props API, or free sports API') is somewhat padded for keyword recall, but every remaining sentence carries operational meaning.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 7-parameter, zero-required filtering tool with an output schema present, the description covers triggers, exclusions, filter semantics, defaults, ranking order and even ranking bias. Return-value detail is not required here given the output schema, and nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so per-parameter meaning is already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine cross-parameter semantics the schema cannot express: how the filters compose ('every feature, free tier, price and region filter must match; sport is a boost, not a filter'). It stops short of explaining the enum values for kind/region beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('find sports odds/data API providers') and spells out the return value: a ranked short list with a one-line reason and review URL. It clearly distinguishes itself from a selection/odds tool by stating it has no odds data, but it never names its actual siblings (compare_sports_apis, get_sports_api_details), so an agent has to infer the routing among them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is explicit and trigger-oriented ('Use this when a developer asks which sports odds API... to use'), and there is a hard exclusion clause ('Do not use this for betting picks, game predictions, or the odds of a specific match'). The combination of when-to-use and when-not-to-use leaves little to inference, even if sibling alternatives are not named.

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

All SportsAPIs.dev tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?