Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sportsdata-mcp

sportsdata-mcp

by DanielTomaro13
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

pointsbet_racing_futures

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch racing futures markets such as Cup and Carnival outrights. Get event details including key, name, competition, and start time for long-running racing markets.

Instructions

Racing futures markets (Cup/Carnival outrights and other long-running racing markets).

Returns: {events:[{key, name, competitionName, startsAt}]}

Auth: none needed.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "pointsbet_racing_futures"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value by specifying 'Auth: none needed' and the exact return format ({events:[{key, name, competitionName, startsAt}]}), which is beyond the annotations. No contradictions found.

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 very brief and front-loaded: main purpose first, then return shape, then auth requirement. Every line is informative with no filler, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 no-parameter, read-only tool with strong annotations, the description covers purpose, output, and auth. It could slightly improve by explicitly stating that it lists all available futures markets, but the current wording is sufficient for most use cases.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics; the empty input schema is self-explanatory. The description's focus on output structure is appropriate.

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 as 'Racing futures markets' with specific examples (Cup/Carnival outrights) and details the return structure. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pointsbet_racing_race by focusing on long-running markets, but lacks an explicit verb, making it slightly less actionable.

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 description implies usage for racing futures markets but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not contrast with sibling tools such as pointsbet_racing_meetings or sportsbet_racing_futures, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name.

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