Return the current public pricing table.
No API key required. Use this when an agent needs to explain which tier unlocks a workflow before sending a checkout link.
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly discloses the tool is public and requires no API key, which is important behavioral information. It could further describe read-only/non-destructive behavior, but 'pricing table' strongly implies a safe retrieval.
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?
Two short, purposeful sentences with no filler. The core function is front-loaded, and the use case plus authentication note are included efficiently in the second sentence.
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 zero-parameter read-only lookup, the description is complete. It states what is returned, that no auth is needed, and the practical scenario for calling it. The output schema covers any return-shape details.
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 for the description to clarify about inputs. The description appropriately adds no param-related noise. Per the baseline for no-parameter tools, this earns a 4.
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 verb ('Return') and a concrete resource ('current public pricing table'). It is immediately clear what the tool does and there is no ambiguity with any of the listed sibling tools.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when an agent needs to explain which tier unlocks a workflow before sending a checkout link.' It also clarifies that no API key is required, giving clear access conditions.
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.