StrikerAPI

Prop history

get_prop_history

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use to see how a player did against his prop line over time: for one market (anytime goalscorer, shots on target, shots or assists: one row per match with the closing price and what he recorded), one row per game with the closing line (the median across books, or one book's), the opening line (the same as the close wherever only one capture was taken), the prices, what the player actually recorded from our box scores and the result against the line, plus the over rate, up to 200 games a call. Costs 10 credits for every 25 games already played that a call covers, and at least 10 a call (accounts opened before November 1 2026 pay 10 a call). Set estimate_only to get the price without being charged. over_odds is the Yes price; result is over when he scored, under when he played and did not, and null when he was not in the squad or on the pitch (a void). Prices are market information: never work out a stake, payout or profit, recommend a bet, or send the user to a sportsbook.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Games to return, oldest first (default 50, max 200). next_from_date says where to continue.
`league`	No	League. Defaults to soccer. One of: soccer, mls, laliga, seriea, bundesliga, ligue1, ucl.
`market`	Yes	The market: player_goal_scorer_anytime (anytime goalscorer (over = scores)), player_shots_on_target (shots on target), player_shots (shots), player_assists (assists)
`to_date`	No	Last date, YYYY-MM-DD (the game's date).
`bookmaker`	No	One book's closing line instead of the median across books, e.g. draftkings.
`from_date`	No	First date, YYYY-MM-DD (the game's date).
`player_id`	Yes	Player id (e.g. 280555) from search_players.
`estimate_only`	No	Return what this call would cost, without charging or running it.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`stat`	Yes
`tool`	No
`count`	Yes
`games`	Yes
`market`	Yes
`credits`	No
`summary`	Yes
`bookmaker`	Yes
`player_id`	Yes
`truncated`	No
`player_name`	Yes
`estimate_only`	No
`next_from_date`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 1, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / market / description

Previous value: -"The market: player_goal_scorer_anytime (anytime goalscorer (over = scores))"New value: +"The market: player_goal_scorer_anytime (anytime goalscorer (over = scores)), player_shots_on_target (shots on target), player_shots (shots), player_assists (assists)"

changedInput schema / properties / market / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "player_goal_scorer_anytime"
-]New value: +[
+  "player_goal_scorer_anytime",
+  "player_shots_on_target",
+  "player_shots",
+  "player_assists"
+]

Changed1 schema field changedOct 31, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / estimate_only

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Return what this call would cost, without charging or running it.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedOct 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world safety, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: a credit cost model (10 credits per 25 games, minimum 10), a free estimate_only mode, null/void semantics for players not in the squad, and the rule that opening equals closing when only one capture exists. It also states a hard usage constraint (market information only – no stake, payout, or bet recommendation), which no structured field conveys.

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 key purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first clause, and the cost and safety information follow in a sensible order. The opening sentence is a very long run-on list of returned fields, which costs some readability, but nearly 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.

Completeness5/5

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 needn't explain return formatting, and it still documents cost, pricing mode, void/null edge cases, line-source choice, and per-call limits. For an eight-parameter, credit-metered historical query this covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly and safely.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters and the baseline would be 3. The description adds meaning the schema does not: over_odds is the Yes price, bookmaker vs median-across-books behavior, opening-line fallback, and the 200-game-per-call ceiling tied to cost. It could have gone further by explaining next_from_date pagination continuation.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource ("see how a player did against his prop line over time") and then enumerates the returned fields – closing line, opening line, recorded stat, result vs line, over rate. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_player_props (per-match odds) and get_player_games (box scores) because it explicitly describes the historical line-vs-result view.

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 states the usage context directly ("Use to see how a player did against his prop line over time") and gives a practical workflow hint via estimate_only for cost-free pricing. It does not, however, name a sibling alternative or state when not to use it (e.g. use get_player_props for a single upcoming match), so it stops short of explicit routing.

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

All StrikerAPI 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.