Generate a Stripe Checkout URL the user can click to upgrade.
Tiers: starter ($5), pro ($20), business ($40), enterprise ($100),
scale ($200). All are monthly subscriptions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tier | No | pro | |
| Yes |
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently states that a URL is generated and includes billing details (monthly tiers with prices). However, it doesn't disclose whether it creates a Stripe Checkout session as a side effect, requires authentication, or imposes any conditions on the email address.
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?
The description is two short sentences plus a clean tier list. The primary action is front-loaded, and every line contributes information (purpose, tier options, billing cycle). 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?
For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameters well. However, it doesn't clarify whether the email must belong to an existing user, how this checkout link relates to signup or magic_link flows, or whether generating the URL has any side effects. These gaps make it slightly incomplete.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively for the 'tier' parameter by enumerating valid values and prices (starter $5, pro $20, etc.) and clarifying they are monthly subscriptions. The 'email' parameter is only implied as 'the user,' though its schema title 'Email' is self-explanatory.
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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Generate a Stripe Checkout URL the user can click to upgrade.' The verb and resource are specific, and the word 'upgrade' signals a difference from sibling tools like signup or magic_link, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 implies usage context ('upgrade') and provides tier options with pricing, which guides parameter selection. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like parlayapi_signup or parlayapi_magic_link, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites such as requiring an existing account.
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.