puntersedge

Closing prices archive

closing_lines

Read-onlyIdempotent

Each bookmaker's closing price per runner from the archive, for model building, CLV and settlement checks. Closing-only rows by default (last quote within 5 minutes of the jump). Costs 5 credits. Plan: Standard and above (last 90 days); Plus and above for the full archive.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "closing_lines"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	No	Meeting day, YYYY-MM-DD, Australian Eastern time.
`limit`	No
`venue`	No	Venue name as the feeds spell it, case-insensitive, e.g. Randwick or Sandown Hillside.
`offset`	No
`country`	No	ISO country code(s), comma-separated: AU, NZ, GB (Britain, not UK), IE, ZA, e.g. 'AU' or 'GB,IE'.
`race_id`	No	race_id from odds_board, race_card, race_results or the archive. The most reliable way to name a race.
`to_date`	No
`from_date`	No
`bookmakers`	No	Only these bookmaker keys, e.g. ["tab", "sportsbet", "ladbrokes_au"]. Default: every book. An unknown key is refused free of charge with the list of valid keys.
`categories`	No	Racing codes to include. horse = thoroughbreds. Default: all three.
`race_number`	No
`resulted_only`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes	The API response, with links and empty fields removed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower; the description still adds substantial non-obvious context: a 5-credit cost, plan gating (Standard+ for last 90 days, Plus+ for the full archive), and the 5-minute definition of a closing row. It omits pagination behavior and rate limits, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before cost and gating. No filler, though the pricing and plan sentence is compressed enough to require a careful read.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The output schema covers return values and annotations cover safety, and cost/plan limits are disclosed. Still, for a 12-parameter archive query with half the params undocumented and no paging guidance, an agent lacks enough to build a correct wide-range or paginated call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 12 parameters and only 50% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does not: it says nothing about limit/offset paging, race_number, resulted_only, or the from_date/to_date window. The only semantic added is the closing-only default, which is a behavior rather than a parameter explanation.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: each bookmaker's closing price per runner from the archive. The 'closing-only rows by default (last quote within 5 minutes of the jump)' clause precisely defines what a closing price is here. It never names a sibling such as price_history or odds_board, so an agent must infer which archive tool to pick.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Names three purposes (model building, CLV, settlement checks) which implies when to call it, and states the default filtering. However it gives no explicit when-not or alternatives — notably nothing distinguishing it from price_history or evaluate_clv, both of which plausibly overlap.

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

All puntersedge tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.