Retrieves the highest available odds for each betting selection across all sportsbooks, enabling users to compare lines and secure the best prices before placing bets.
Get the best available price per selection across all covered books. This is the line shopping view: one row per selection rather than one per book.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| sport | No | ||
| league | No | ||
| market | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool aggregates across all covered books, but it does not mention side effects, data freshness, pagination behavior, or whether it is a read-only operation. The basic query nature is implied but not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences. It delivers the core functionality and the key differentiator without any redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the purpose is clear, the description lacks any explanation of parameter usage or expected return format beyond the single-row-per-selection hint. There is no output schema, so the description must compensate, but it does not provide enough detail for an agent to confidently use the tool without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All five parameters (event, limit, sport, league, market) have no descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no explanation of what these parameters mean or how they affect the query. With 0% schema description coverage and no compensatory text, the parameters are entirely opaque.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: retrieving the best available price per selection across all covered books. It explicitly distinguishes itself from a per-book view, which sets it apart from sibling tools like get_odds.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description effectively contrasts this tool with the alternative per-book view ('one row per selection rather than one per book'), making it clear when to use this over get_odds. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this when you need best odds' or mention other alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.