Scan Edges
Tonight's prop board ranked by model edge (VALUE first).
200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json 422: Validation Error Content-Type: application/json
Example Response:
{
"detail": [
{
"loc": [],
"msg": "Message",
"type": "Error Type",
"ctx": {}
}
]
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prop | No | home_run | |
| coors | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| season | No | ||
| min_edge | No | ||
| threshold | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions ranking by edge but does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The inclusion of HTTP response codes provides minimal API structure detail but no behavioral traits.
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 core description is a single phrase, but it is followed by an unnecessary copy of HTTP response codes and an example that does not add value for the agent. The real content is front-loaded but wasted space makes it less concise than it could be.
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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain parameter meanings, return format, pagination, or any usage context, leaving the agent with little to work with.
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% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The description does not explain any of the 6 parameters (prop, coors, limit, season, min_edge, threshold) beyond noting 'edge' in the summary. This is insufficient for an agent to use parameters correctly.
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 the tool scans the prop board and ranks by model edge, with VALUE first. This gives a clear verb (scan) and resource (prop board edges), but it does not distinguish from sibling tools like betting_analyze_prop or betting_best_bets, and the phrase 'Tonight's prop board' may conflict with the season parameter.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite information.
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.