SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev

SportsLine odds board: for NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, college

dev_sportsline

Read-only

SportsLine (CBS Sports) odds board: for NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, college or WNBA, every listed game with teams, start time, venue, TV, status, SportsLine's projected score and, per sportsbook (consensus, BetMGM, DraftKings, FanDuel, bet365, Caesars…), the opening and current moneyline, point spread and total with prices. Related tools on this server, for a different need: dev_fanduel when you need FanDuel Sportsbook game lines for NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, WNBA; dev_teamrankings when you need TeamRankings team stat table for NBA or NFL, for one stat. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

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": {
      "league": "<league>"
    },
    "name": "dev_sportsline"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`team`	No	Only games with this team abbreviation, e.g. NE
`limit`	No	Games, 1 to 50 (default 20)
`league`	Yes	nfl, nba, mlb, nhl, college-football, college-basketball, wnba

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds non-obvious operational context the annotations cannot: a $0.002 USDC per-successful-call cost, x402 payment across Base, Solana or Arc, and the fact that failed calls are not charged. That payment/charging detail is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs before calling a metered endpoint. It does not mention refresh cadence or rate limits, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Content is front-loaded: the resource and returned fields come first, then alternatives, then pricing — a sensible order for an agent scanning for fit. The first sentence is very long and comma-chained, and the book list ('consensus, BetMGM, DraftKings, FanDuel, bet365, Caesars…') is padded, but no sentence is truly wasted.

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 does not need to explain return structure, and its enumeration of contents, sibling routing and pricing covers the main decision inputs for a read-only, metered odds endpoint. The remaining gap is freshness/timeliness of the odds, which matters for a betting-data tool but is not stated.

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 team, limit and league are already documented in the schema with examples and ranges. The description restates the league set and the book list but adds no new syntax, format, or edge-case guidance (e.g. how the league value maps to 'college', or what happens if team matches nothing). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

The description names the exact resource (SportsLine/CBS Sports odds board), the leagues covered, and enumerates the returned fields — teams, start time, venue, TV, status, projected score, and per-book opening/current moneyline, spread and total with prices. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from dev_fanduel and dev_teamrankings by naming those siblings and the needs they serve.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent away for two adjacent needs: dev_fanduel for FanDuel-only game lines and dev_teamrankings for single-stat team tables. The enumeration of contents implicitly defines when this tool is the right pick (multi-book odds plus SportsLine projections). There is no explicit exclusion, such as whether it covers live/in-game odds versus pre-game only, so it stops short of a full 5.

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

All SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?