Skip to main content
Glama

Odds Api

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Get Odds

get_odds
Read-onlyIdempotent

Current odds for upcoming + live events in a league. Each market type costs 1 quota credit per region per call — pick markets carefully.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
marketsNoh2h | spreads | totals | outrights — comma-sep (default h2h)
regionsNous | uk | eu | au — comma-sep (default us)
event_idsNoRestrict to specific event IDs (comma-sep)
sport_keyYesSport key from list_sports, e.g. "americanfootball_nfl"
bookmakersNoComma-sep bookmaker keys (e.g. "draftkings,fanduel") to restrict
date_formatNoiso (default) | unix
odds_formatNoamerican (default) | decimal

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countYesNumber of items returned.
itemsYes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. Description adds the crucial behavioral detail of quota credit consumption, which is beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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-sentence description: first sentence succinctly states purpose, second delivers critical usage constraint. No unnecessary words, highly efficient.

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?

Covers core functionality and cost implications. With output schema present, return structure is documented. Could briefly mention required sport_key, but it's implied by 'in a league'.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by linking markets and regions to credit cost, aiding parameter selection. Each parameter is well-defined in the schema.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves current odds for upcoming and live events in a league, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'get_event_odds' which focuses on individual events.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on quota credit cost per market/region, advising careful selection. Lacks explicit comparison to alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, but the cost note is practical.

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

All Odds Api 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct scopes, and the long cross-referencing descriptions help a lot. However, ask_pipeworx_beta is currently an exact duplicate of ask_pipeworx by the server's own description, and the polymarket_* family plus ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research have overlapping boundaries that could mislead an agent.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern like get_odds, list_sports, resolve_entity, and subscribe. A few exceptions such as odds_api_quota, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_arbitrage, and recall break the pattern slightly, but the overall convention is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is well past the 25+ threshold and feels bloated for a server named 'Odds Api'. Many tools are meta-platform utilities — memory, feedback, trending, dependency scanning, llms.txt generation — that have no obvious connection to an odds API and make the surface hard to navigate.

Completeness4/5

The odds domain is well covered: list_sports, get_events, get_odds, get_event_odds, get_scores, quota tracking, and subscriptions form a coherent read/monitor workflow. Minor gaps exist — no historical odds or a single-event detail endpoint — but agents can complete core odds research and monitoring tasks without dead ends.

Resources