Get info about the API key currently in use: tier, credits remaining, billing period.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Get info' implicitly indicates a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, does not consume credits, or that no additional authentication is needed. It is adequate for a zero-parameter info endpoint but leaves these behaviors implicit.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then enumerates the return fields in a compact, readable list. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is nearly complete. It names the key return categories, which is sufficient for an agent to select and call it. It could be slightly richer by explicitly confirming the operation is read-only, but that gap is minor for this simple endpoint.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on return content rather than inputs. No parameter ambiguity exists.
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?
The description states a specific action ('Get info about the API key currently in use') and specifies the exact resource and output categories (tier, credits remaining, billing period). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools, none of which concern account or API key information.
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?
The description makes its use case evident: any time an agent needs details about the current API key's tier, credits, or billing cycle. There is no explicit comparison to alternative tools, but since none of the siblings provide account information, no exclusion is necessary. Clear context, though not formally worded as 'use when...'.
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.
Most tools map to distinct workflows (raw odds, best-line, EV scan, arb, middle, single-bet grade, parlay grade), but several pairs are easy to mix up: find_ev vs best_bets both surface +EV opportunities, live_sports vs list_sports differ only in 'live', and verdict vs parlay_verdict have near-identical names. The detailed descriptions resolve most ambiguity, so it is not chaotic, but the boundaries are not all crisp.
All names share the parlayapi_ prefix and snake_case, but the suffix style is inconsistent: some are verb-led (get_odds, find_arbitrage, set_bettable_books) and many are bare noun phrases (consensus, verdict, source_quality, magic_link). The live_* and best_* groups are internally consistent, but pairs like list_sports/live_sports and verdict/parlay_verdict add confusion.
22 tools is on the heavy side for an MCP server, even though the sports-betting domain is broad. Each tool has a plausible purpose, but the public demo/metadata tools (live_command_center, book_coverage, source_quality, live_sports) could probably be consolidated or separated.
The surface covers the core domain well: sport discovery, game odds, props, consensus, best-line, EV, arbitrage, middles, single-bet verdicts, parlay verdicts, and account/signup flows. Minor gaps exist (no explicit book/market metadata list, no historical odds, no betting-account history), but agents can usually work around them.