Find betting middles where two opposing prices create a gap that lets both bets win. Filter by sport, league, market, and middle size, and sort by quality, EV, probability, or size.
Find middle opportunities: two prices on opposite sides with a gap where both bets can win. Sorted by quality unless told otherwise.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| sport | No | ||
| league | No | ||
| market | No | ||
| min_size | No | Minimum middle width in points |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful default-sort behavior ('Sorted by quality unless told otherwise') and clarifies the win condition for a middle. It does not disclose output shape, pagination, or data availability, but for a read-only 'get' tool this is not severely deficient.
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?
Two concise sentences: the first states the operation with a definition, and the second states the default ordering. There is no redundant detail or repetition of the schema.
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?
The tool has six optional parameters and no output schema, and most parameters receive no semantic explanation. The description defines the domain and default sort but does not cover filter usage, limit behavior, or what result shape to expect, so an agent cannot fully judge output without guessing.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 17%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the default sort behavior, mapping to the sort parameter, and leaves limit, sport, league, market, and min_size semantically unexplained by either the schema or the description.
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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('middle opportunities') and defines the concept precisely as two prices on opposite sides with a gap where both bets can win. This clearly distinguishes middles from sibling tools like get_arbitrage or get_odds, even without naming them.
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 intended use is implied: call this tool when you want middle opportunities. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as get_arbitrage or get_ev, and no conditions that disfavor this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.