puntersedge

Live odds board

odds_board

Read-onlyIdempotent

The next races to run with EVERY bookmaker's current win and place price for every runner, as a compact matrix: each race lists its bookmakers (with the age of each book's quote) and each runner carries price arrays in that order. The fastest way to see the whole live market. For the best price per runner use best_odds; for one race in depth use race_odds. Costs 2 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": "odds_board"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`venue`	No	Venue name as the feeds spell it, case-insensitive, e.g. Randwick or Sandown Hillside.
`country`	No	ISO country code(s), comma-separated: AU, NZ, GB (Britain, not UK), IE, ZA, e.g. 'AU' or 'GB,IE'. Without country or venue this covers AU, NZ, GB, IE and ZA.
`num_races`	No	How many upcoming races, soonest first. Default 5.
`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.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`races`	Yes
`race_count`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds non-annotation context: the 2-credit cost, universal plan availability, the matrix layout, and that each bookmaker's quote carries an age/freshness figure. It stops short of stating pagination or how many runners per race, which the output schema presumably covers.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences, each load-bearing: capability, output shape, alternatives, cost. No repetition of schema fields or annotation boilerplate.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Output schema exists so return values needn't be spelled out in prose, and the description still sketches the matrix structure to aid parsing. Combined with full schema coverage, cost disclosure, and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so all five parameters (venue, country, num_races, bookmakers, categories) are already fully documented with examples, defaults and patterns. The description only hints at ordering semantics ('price arrays in that order') tied to the bookmakers list, adding marginal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource (next races to run with every bookmaker's win and place price for every runner) and characterizes the output shape as a compact matrix. It explicitly contrasts itself with best_odds (per-runner best price) and race_odds (single race depth), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Names both alternatives and the exact condition that selects each: 'For the best price per runner use best_odds; for one race in depth use race_odds.' It also discloses cost (2 credits) and plan availability, which are decision-relevant for tool selection.

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.