Skip to main content
Glama

yahoo_sports_odds_game

Read-only

Fetch the public betting markets for one Yahoo Sports game ID, optionally formatted in an IANA timezone.

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>"
    },
    "name": "yahoo_sports_odds_game"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tzNoOptional. IANA timezone used for game dates; defaults to UTC, e.g. America/New_York or Asia/Shanghai.
game_idYesRequired. Yahoo game id from an odds game list, such as nfl.g.20261101002.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesThe tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety profile is covered. The description adds that the markets are 'public' (no auth) and that date formatting is controllable, but says nothing about freshness, coverage of bookmakers, or whether markets can be empty — useful gaps to close for a live odds feed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource and scope first and the tz option second. No filler, nothing repeated.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only lookup with an output schema and full schema descriptions, the description covers what is needed to call it correctly. It stops short of noting anything about how to obtain a game ID or the live nature of odds data, which would complete the picture.

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%: game_id is documented with an example format (nfl.g.20261101002) and tz is documented with defaults and examples. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb + resource + scope: 'Fetch the public betting markets for one Yahoo Sports game ID.' The 'one game ID' phrasing distinguishes it from a list-style odds tool, but it never names yahoo_sports_odds_games or any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 requirement of a game ID implies a prior lookup step (the game-list tool), and 'optionally formatted in an IANA timezone' cues the tz parameter, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement or alternative named. Usage must be inferred.

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.