Skip to main content
Glama

PropLine — Sports Betting Odds & Prop Resolution

Get market-implied projections

propline_get_event_projections
Read-onlyIdempotent

Market-implied consensus projection per (market, player) for an event: the line where the no-vig P(over) crosses 50%, median across contributing sportsbooks. Use it to validate statistical or fantasy projections against the live market. These are MARKET-IMPLIED values derived purely from sportsbook prices — never a forecast, and no accuracy claim is made; present them as 'the market implies X', not 'PropLine projects X'. DFS pick'em pricing is excluded; each row carries books_contributing and a stable player_id (null until the player has graded). Hobby+ for values; free tier gets the structure redacted.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
marketsNoComma-separated market keys, e.g. 'player_pass_yds,player_receptions'.
event_idYes
sport_keyYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

While annotations cover read-only/idempotent safety, the description adds essential behavioral context beyond them: the values are market-implied with no accuracy claim, not a forecast, player_id is null until graded, and tier differences in output. This fully discloses the behavior and limitations.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: definition, use case, interpretation warning, exclusions, and tier info. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, and the structure flows logically from what to how to constraints.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description covers output semantics (no-vig cross, books_contributing, player_id null until graded), exclusions, and tier restrictions well. Minor gaps include not explaining what 'Hobby+' tiers mean or how event_id/sport_key should be formatted, but these are likely standard to the API.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 33% (only 'markets' has a description), yet the description doesn't clarify 'sport_key' or 'event_id' beyond their names. It mentions the output is per (market, player) but provides no format or allowable values for the required parameters, failing to compensate for the schema gaps.

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 returns market-implied consensus projections per (market, player) for an event, with a precise definition (no-vig P(over) crossing 50%, median across sportsbooks). This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like odds or EV, making its purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says to use it to validate statistical or fantasy projections against the live market, and warns how to present results ('the market implies X', not 'PropLine projects X'). It also notes the DFS exclusion, giving both positive and negative guidance without naming alternatives directly.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The tools are mostly distinct by purpose, but several overlap in areas like odds retrieval (get_odds vs get_best_line vs get_event_ev) and historical data (get_odds_history vs get_odds_closing vs export_odds_history). Descriptions are detailed and clarify distinctions, but the close functional relationships (e.g., get_event_movement vs get_odds_history) may cause selection ambiguity for an agent.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming pattern is largely consistent: propline_<verb>_<noun> with verbs like get, list, export. Most tools follow this structure (e.g., get_event_results, list_events, list_sports). Deviations include 'propline_export_odds_history' (export instead of get) and a few longer names like 'propline_get_mlb_grand_salami' and 'propline_get_nhl_daily_goals_total' that break the simple verb_noun pattern but are still readable. Overall, the naming is predictable with minor exceptions.

Tool Count4/5

With 23 tools for a sports betting odds and prop resolution server, the count is on the higher side but still within a reasonable range given the domain's complexity (odds, EV, movement, results, player trends, webhooks, exports). Each tool serves a distinct function, though some could be consolidated (e.g., grand salami and NHL daily totals could be one). Slightly heavy but not excessive.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the core lifecycle: discover sports and events (list_sports, list_events), retrieve odds and markets (get_odds, list_event_markets), analyze EV and lines (get_event_ev, get_best_line, get_event_movement), track results and player stats (get_event_results, get_event_stats, get_player_history, get_player_trends), and backfill via exports. Missing features include webhook management (deliberately omitted) and possibly batch operations, but the surface is comprehensive for the stated purpose.