Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

flashscore_match_odds

Compare bookmaker odds for a sports match by viewer market, returning prices, opening odds, and lines grouped by betting type and scope.

Instructions

Flashscore match bookmaker odds comparison. Returns bookmaker odds for a match in one viewer market, grouped by betting type and scope with every bookmaker's priced outcomes, opening odds, handicap or total lines, and a selection label. Bookmakers and prices depend on the market, so pick geo (and subdivision for US or CA) from flashscore-odds-geos. A market with no licensed bookmakers returns empty lists. Promotional bonus text is not included.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesEight-character Flashscore match id
geoNoViewer market country code from flashscore-odds-geos; defaults to GB
scopeNoOptional filter to one scope
subdivisionNoUS state (with geo US) or Canadian province (with geo CA) code from flashscore-odds-geos; rejected with any other geo
betting_typeNoOptional filter to one betting type

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.12

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a decent job: it describes the grouped return structure, opening odds, handicap/total lines, the selection label, and an important edge case ('A market with no licensed bookmakers returns empty lists'). It omits auth or rate-limit behavior, but the key result-shape and empty-result behavior are disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then return shape, then geo routing, then edge cases. Four sentences that mostly earn their place; the final 'Promotional bonus text is not included' is a minor but legitimate scoping note.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain the return shape, and it does so adequately (grouping by betting type/scope, priced outcomes, lines, selection label). Combined with full schema coverage for all five params and the empty-list edge case, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents id, geo (with GB default), scope, subdivision (US/CA only), and betting_type. The description's geo guidance largely restates the schema's 'from flashscore-odds-geos' note, so it adds little beyond the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns bookmaker odds for a match in one viewer market') and names the grouping structure (betting type, scope, bookmaker priced outcomes). This makes it distinguishable in spirit from outright-odds siblings like flashscore_team_outright_odds, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It routes the agent to another tool for the geo parameter ('pick geo ... from flashscore-odds-geos'), which is useful. However it never states when to use this tool versus the outright-odds or other odds siblings, and gives no prerequisites beyond the geo source.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools