Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

puntersedge

by io.github.Propertyscout001
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Margin-free consensus price

consensus_price
Read-onlyIdempotent

Each runner's consensus probability and fair price for one race, built by removing every bookmaker's margin and combining the books, with the books included and excluded and why. Costs 3 credits. Every plan.

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": "consensus_price"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
venueNoVenue name as the feeds spell it, case-insensitive, e.g. Randwick or Sandown Hillside.
countryNoTwo-letter country of the meeting. Only needed when two meetings share a venue name on one day (Ascot in Perth and in Berkshire).
race_idNorace_id from odds_board, race_card, race_results or the archive. The most reliable way to name a race.
min_booksNo
bookmakersNoOnly 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.
race_numberNo
meeting_dateNoMeeting day, YYYY-MM-DD, Australian Eastern time.
include_staleNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesThe API response, with links and empty fields removed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the 3-credit cost, plan availability, and that the output explains which books were included or excluded and why.

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?

The description is compact and front-loads the core purpose before cost and plan details. The phrase about books included and excluded is slightly dense but still earns its place by explaining output composition.

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 and annotations cover return structure and safety, and the description adds cost and output rationale. However, for an 8-parameter tool with no required parameters, it does not explain how to identify a race when race_id is absent or how meeting_date, venue, race_number, and country combine.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 63%, with venue, country, race_id, bookmakers, and meeting_date documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning for undocumented parameters such as min_books, race_number, or include_stale, so it provides only baseline support where the schema already does most of the work.

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?

The description states a specific computed resource: each runner's consensus probability and fair price for one race, including margin removal and book combination. This conceptually separates it from raw odds tools such as odds_board or best_odds, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

It gives no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of best_odds, odds_board, race_odds, or closing_lines. The credit cost and plan availability are noted, but there are no usage conditions or exclusions.

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

All puntersedge toolsInspect
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.

Resources