SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev

Pre-match head-to-head odds for one sport from The Odds

dev_the_odds_api_sports

Read-only

Pre-match head-to-head odds for one sport from The Odds API (v4): each event with start time, teams and each bookmaker's decimal prices, plus the best price per outcome and which bookmaker offers it. Needs the owner's free The Odds API key; uses quota on that key. Related tools on this server, for a different need: dev_academy_sports_outdoors when you need Academy Sports + Outdoors products on one category page; dev_espn_sports when you need ESPN latest news headlines for one league from ESPN's. 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": {
      "sport": "<sport>"
    },
    "name": "dev_the_odds_api_sports"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sport`	Yes	The Odds API sport key, e.g. soccer_epl, basketball_nba, americanfootball_nfl
`regions`	No	Bookmaker region: us, uk, eu or au (default uk)

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

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it states the owner's free API key is required, that quota is consumed, that the price is $0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base, Solana, or Arc, and that failed calls are not charged. It also describes the returned event and bookmaker price structure, which is useful even with an output schema.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and the pricing/auth details are useful, but the sentence recommending unrelated Academy Sports and ESPN tools is tangential and slightly distracts from selecting this tool. It remains efficient overall.

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?

For a read-only, open-world odds lookup with a complete input schema and an output schema, the description is complete enough: it covers the data source, required key, quota impact, payment cost, and returned content. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 the two parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the sport key format and region options. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond reinforcing that it covers one sport and bookmaker prices.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: pre-match head-to-head odds for one sport from The Odds API v4, and enumerates what each event includes. It distinguishes this from two named siblings, but not from the many other odds/betting siblings on the server, so it is clear rather than fully sibling-differentiated.

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 gives clear context for use: one sport, pre-match head-to-head odds, from The Odds API. It also names two related tools for different needs, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this over other odds providers such as Pinnacle or FanDuel.

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?