Skip to main content
Glama
DanielTomaro13

sportsdata-mcp

by DanielTomaro13
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

puntersedge_demo_book_sport

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a keyless sample of one bookmaker's prices for a chosen sport, returning a few events or races. Use for quick odds checks or demo testing.

Instructions

No key needed. A small live sample of one bookmaker's prices for one sport — a few events, or a few races when the sport is a racing code.

Returns: {demo:true, note, signup_url, book, sport, type:'sports'|'racing', has_data, cached, items:[…]} — items shape follows type: sports → [{home_team, away_team, commence_time, prices:[{name, price}]}]; racing → [{venue, race_number, start_time, runners:[{name, number, price}]}]. Read type before indexing.

Example: Sportsbet's AFL prices, keyless {"book": "sportsbet", "sport": "afl"}

Auth: works without a key; PUNTERSEDGE_API_KEY unlocks more if set.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bookYesBookmaker SLUG for this sandbox endpoint only, e.g. sportsbet, ladbrokes, pointsbet. NOT the keyed API's bookmaker keys (those are betr_au, ladbrokes_au, pointsbetau, playup) — read those off puntersedge_racing_next_to_go instead.
sportYesSport SLUG for this sandbox endpoint only, e.g. afl, nrl, horse-racing, greyhound-racing. NOT a keyed sport_key: the keyed API has no 'horse-racing' sport_key at all, because racing lives under the puntersedge.racing tools.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.33.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and idempotentHint, so behavior is partly covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: keyless auth semantics, the PUNTERSEDGE_API_KEY upgrade path, the `has_data`/`cached` flags, and the 'Read type before indexing' warning about the polymorphic payload.

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-loads the key fact ('No key needed'), then return shape, example, and auth in a logical order. Dense but every block earns its place; the long inline return-shape sentence is the only slightly crowded part.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining the return shape and does so thoroughly, including the sports-vs-racing union, the fields per variant, and the caution to read `type` first. An agent has everything needed to call and parse 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%, and both `book` and `sport` are richly documented in the schema (including the slug-vs-keyed-key distinction). The description only adds the worked example {"book":"sportsbet","sport":"afl"}, which is marginal over the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: a small live sample of one bookmaker's prices for one sport, plus the racing variant. It clearly positions itself as a keyless demo endpoint, distinct from the keyed API and from siblings like puntersedge_sport_odds or puntersedge_demo_best_odds.

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 conveys context (no key required, key unlocks more if set, signup_url returned) which implies exploratory/onboarding use, but it never says explicitly when to pick this over the keyed tools or other demo tools. The when-to-use-vs-alternative routing lives in the schema param descriptions rather than here.

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