Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

puntersedge

by io.github.Propertyscout001
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Sports odds by bookmaker

sports_odds
Read-onlyIdempotent

Every bookmaker's head-to-head, line and total prices for a sport's upcoming events. Costs 1 credit per market requested. Every plan.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "sport_key": "<sport_key>"
    },
    "name": "sports_odds"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
marketsNoDefault h2h. Each market is billed.
sport_keyYesSport key from sports_list, e.g. afl, nrl, nba or soccer_epl. An unknown key is answered with the valid ones.
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.
competitionNoOne competition, e.g. NRLW.

Output Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / sport_key / description
      Previous value: -"Sport key from sports_list, e.g. afl, nrl, nba or epl. An unknown key is answered with the valid ones."New value: +"Sport key from sports_list, e.g. afl, nrl, nba or soccer_epl. An unknown key is answered with the valid ones."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context the annotations lack: per-market credit cost and per-market billing, which lets an agent budget calls. It stops short of describing rate limits, latency or result ordering.

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, zero filler, with scope stated first and the cost constraint second. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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, return values need not be explained, and cost plus coverage are stated. What is missing for a 4-parameter, multi-bookmaker query is breadth guidance (how many events are returned, pagination or result caps), which the agent may need to size its call.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters including defaults and enum values are documented in the schema itself. The description echoes the market types and the 'every bookmaker' default but adds no syntax, format or constraint detail beyond what is already structured. Baseline 3 applies.

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: every bookmaker's h2h, line and total prices for a sport's upcoming events. That clearly separates it from price-aggregating siblings like best_odds or consensus_price, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

The only usage-shaped information is billing ('Costs 1 credit per market requested. Every plan.') — a cost signal, not a when-to-use signal. There is no guidance on when to pick this over sports_best_odds, best_odds or odds_board, and no stated prerequisites.

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