draftkingsapi-mcp

Live coverage

get_coverage

Read-only

Check live coverage of every dataset available to your DraftKings API key, so you can confirm which odds, DFS, Pick6, and history feeds your key can access.

Instructions

Live coverage of every dataset for your key. Needs DRAFTKINGS_API_KEY (free key, no card, at https://draftkingsapi.com/sign-up).

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": "get_coverage"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`task`	No	Optional: the user's task in one plain sentence, nothing personal. Helps the API return what fits.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 15, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world behavior, and the description adds a genuinely non-obvious operational requirement: a DRAFTKINGS_API_KEY is needed, it is free, and where to obtain it. It still omits what the response contains and whether results are per-dataset or aggregated, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

Two short sentences with the capability stated first and the prerequisite second, so nothing is buried. The signup URL is slightly promotional but still actionable information for an agent that must surface setup steps.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description is the only place a caller could learn what this returns, and it says only 'coverage of every dataset', leaving the shape ambiguous. The auth prerequisite is well covered, but the result semantics are not.

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 there is a single optional 'task' parameter fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the task parameter or how it shapes the returned coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Live coverage of every dataset for your key" gestures at a catalog/discovery tool that reports which datasets are available live, but it never uses a concrete verb like "list" and never says whether the result is a list of datasets, a coverage percentage, or a status per feed. It also fails to distinguish itself from the sibling get_history_coverage, which the name alone cannot resolve.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to call this versus get_history_coverage or get_status, and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the API key. An agent must infer usage from the name.

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