Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

puntersedge

by io.github.Propertyscout001
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Price history for one race

price_history
Read-onlyIdempotent

Every bookmaker's price path for each runner in one race: open, close, high and low, and optionally the time series. Give race_id, or venue + race_number + date. Costs 5 credits. Plan: Every plan for races in the last 24 hours; Standard and above for older races.

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": "price_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNoRace date, YYYY-MM-DD.
venueNoVenue name as the feeds spell it, case-insensitive, e.g. Randwick or Sandown Hillside.
race_idNorace_id from odds_board, race_card, race_results or the archive. The most reliable way to name a race.
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.
max_pointsNo
race_numberNo
include_pointsNotrue adds every captured price point (larger reply).

Output Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes beyond them with two operationally important facts: the flat 5-credit cost and the plan-tier gating by race age. It does not address volume/pagination behavior despite include_points producing a "larger reply", leaving the agent to guess at response size for old races.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. What is returned comes first, then how to identify the race, then cost and plan constraint — a sensible front-loaded order for a paid, gated call.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return structure, and it covers identity, cost and plan gating well. The remaining gaps are minor but real: why one would set max_points, and how much the reply grows with include_points.

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

Parameters4/5

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

At 71% schema coverage the schema documents most parameters, but the description adds real semantics the schema does not: that race_id and venue/race_number/date are alternative identification routes rather than cumulative filters. max_points is mentioned nowhere in either place, so one parameter remains opaque.

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 (price path per runner, per bookmaker, for one race) and enumerates the shape returned: open, close, high, low, optionally the time series. That implicitly separates it from closing_lines and odds_changes, but it never names those siblings, so an agent comparing the odds-related tools must still infer the boundary.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

"Give race_id, or venue + race_number + date" gives a clear calling context, and the cost plus plan eligibility (Every plan for last 24h; Standard+ for older) tells the agent when the call will succeed. It stops short of explicit exclusions, e.g. what to call instead when only closing prices are needed.

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