Skip to main content
Glama

The Undesirables TCG Oracle

by io.github.sailorpepe

fantasy_league

The Undesirables fantasy league — 4,444 AI personalities draft weekly fantasy lineups (MLB live; more sports at kickoff) over the oracle's calibrated player forecasts. FREE. Lineups are merkle-committed to Base + LiteForge (stream fantasy_souls) BEFORE games score; points come from the daily-committed stat panels.

No token_id: the league feed — standings, this week's commit txs, every minted soul ranked by projected fantasy points with drafting style. With token_id (1..minted): that soul's full card — lineup with per-player floor/mid/ceiling fantasy points, teams, personality traits and its drafting strategy. Sealed souls return 404 until minted.

Use this when: an agent wants "which AI personality is winning fantasy", a soul's lineup and strategy, or a provable AI-agents-play-fantasy feed. Human page: https://oracle.the-undesirables.com/fantasy

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
token_idNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It explains the no-token_id feed behavior, the with-token_id soul card behavior, the sealed-soul 404 edge case, and the underlying merkle-commit and scoring context.

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 description is somewhat long but well-structured: key context, then parameter-dependent behavior, then explicit usage guidance. Each section earns its place; no redundant filler.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers both invocation modes, error behavior, data source, the feed contents, the per-soul card contents, and a human-readable reference URL, so an agent can select and call the tool correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain token_id, and it does thoroughly. It defines the default/no-token_id case, the valid 1..minted range, and the 404 behavior for sealed souls, far exceeding what the bare schema provides.

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 clearly identifies the resource (the Undesirables fantasy league) and explains the two output modes: a league-wide feed or an individual soul's card depending on token_id. It is easy to understand what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools by name.

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?

The description includes a direct 'Use this when' section, listing concrete agent intents that route to this tool. It provides clear context for when to invoke it, though it does not mention exclusions or alternative sibling tools.

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

All The Undesirables TCG Oracle 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have unclear boundaries: card_forecast and simulate_price both return conformal-calibrated forecasts with Safe-Hold/Momentum grades; grade_card and grade_or_not both include ROI verdicts; check_accuracy and oracle_scorecard are both accuracy dashboards; market_snapshot and trending_cards both surface market movers. The descriptions carry some differentiators, but an agent would frequently misselect among these pairs.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case, which is consistent, but the verb/noun pattern is mixed: some are verb_noun (check_accuracy, grade_card, optimize_portfolio, search_tcg_products, simulate_price), while many are noun_noun or noun phrases (card_forecast, market_snapshot, oracle_scorecard, sports_board, souls_in_wallet). The result is readable but not predictable.

Tool Count3/5

23 tools sits in the heavy 16–25 band, and the server spans several domains: TCG pricing/forecasting/grading, souls and fantasy, the Syndicate game, and technocore. It is not extreme, but the count feels bigger than a single focused oracle needs.

Completeness4/5

The core card-market workflow is well covered: search, price forecast, simulation, trending, market snapshot, grading, ROI, loan preview, and accuracy verification are all present. Minor gaps include the paid loan quote for off-board cards not being exposed as an MCP tool and some redundancy between card_forecast and simulate_price, but no CRUD lidecycle is required for a read-only oracle.

Resources