Skip to main content
Glama

livetennisapi-mcp

by io.github.livetennisapi

Match market prices

get_match_odds
Read-onlyIdempotent

Match-winner market prices for a match — implied probability per player, with bid, ask and mid. Requires the PRO plan.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum price points to return (1-200).
match_idYesMatch id, as returned by get_live_matches, get_upcoming_matches or get_recent_results.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesTrue when the call returned data. False for a tier wall, a missing or rejected key, or an empty result — all of which are normal states with a clear remedy, not failures.
marketNoThe match-winner market.
messageYesHuman-readable summary. Identical to the text content, so either half can be used alone.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare safe read-only behavior. Description adds value by specifying exactly what data fields are returned (implied probability, bid, ask, mid) and the plan requirement. No contradictions.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The most critical information (function and prerequisite) is front-loaded.

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 to document return values, and the description provides key behavioral context (data types). Combined with strong annotations, the tool is fully documented.

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 has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add additional parameter information beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

Clearly states the resource (match-winner market prices) and the data provided (implied probability, bid, ask, mid). Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_match (general info) and get_match_score (score).

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?

Explicitly notes the PRO plan requirement, which is a key prerequisite. Does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives, but the purpose is specific enough that usage context is clear.

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

All livetennisapi-mcp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The tool set is largely distinct with clear resource/action pairs. Potential confusion exists between get_match and get_match_score (both return match information), and get_fixtures vs get_upcoming_matches (both list upcoming matches), but descriptions clarify the specific use cases for each.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using either 'get_' or 'search_'. This makes the API highly predictable and easy to navigate, with no stylistic deviations.

Tool Count3/5

With 24 tools, the server is on the heavy end of the typical range. The broad scope (live, archive, charting, rankings, tournaments) justifies the count, but it borders on overwhelming and requires careful categorization.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the core lifecycle of a tennis information API: searching players/tournaments, retrieving profiles/rankings, live scores and detailed match analysis, historical results, and head-to-head records. Minor gaps like tournament draws or standings are missing, but the primary use cases are well covered.

Resources