FastballAPI

Prop movement

get_prop_movement

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use to see how one player's prop line moved before a game: every capture we hold, book by book and oldest first, with the line, both prices and the minutes before the start. line_change is the last capture's line minus the first's. The number of captures varies by game and book. Costs 10 credits. Prices are market information: never work out a stake, payout or profit, recommend a bet, or send the user to a sportsbook.

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": {
      "game_id": "<game_id>",
      "player_id": "<player_id>",
      "market": "<market>"
    },
    "name": "get_prop_movement"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`market`	Yes	The market: batter_hits (hits), batter_home_runs (home runs), batter_total_bases (total bases), batter_rbis (runs batted in), pitcher_strikeouts (pitcher strikeouts), pitcher_outs (pitcher outs recorded)
`game_id`	Yes	Game id.
`bookmaker`	No	One book's captures, e.g. draftkings.
`player_id`	Yes	Player id (e.g. 33192) from search_players.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`tool`	No
`books`	Yes
`count`	Yes
`market`	Yes
`credits`	No
`game_id`	Yes
`player_id`	Yes
`player_name`	Yes
`estimate_only`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: a 10-credit cost, the capture ordering and the fact that capture counts vary by game and book. It also defines the derived line_change field (last capture's line minus the first's) and states the market-information policy constraint. Missing are auth requirements or guidance on what an empty capture list means.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by what the payload contains, then cost and policy. Three sentences, each doing work. Slight density in the enumeration of returned fields, but nothing is 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still explains the shape of the result, the ordering, the line_change derivation, variable capture counts and a credit cost. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly. The one gap is the absence of routing guidance against the several overlapping history and odds siblings.

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 the schema already documents market, game_id, bookmaker and player_id, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description reinforces that bookmaker narrows to one book's captures and that player_id is a single player, but adds no format, range or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource: how one player's prop line moved before a game, returning every capture book by book, oldest first, with line, both prices and minutes before start. It is concrete enough that an agent knows exactly what comes back. It stops short of naming the sibling it differs from (get_prop_history or get_line_movement), so the distinction must be inferred.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The opening 'Use to see how one player's prop line moved before a game' gives an implied usage context, and 'The number of captures varies by game and book' hints at when the result will be sparse. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many sibling history/odds tools, leaving the agent to guess between get_prop_movement, get_prop_history and get_line_movement.

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

All FastballAPI tools Inspect

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.