draftkingsapi-mcp

Credit costs (keyless)

get_credit_costs

Read-only

Check how many credits an API endpoint costs, optionally for a specific path and row count, before making requests.

Instructions

Credits each endpoint costs, optionally for a path and row count. No key needed, no credits.

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_credit_costs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	No	An API path such as /api/v1/odds.
`rows`	No
`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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds genuinely non-redundant context: the lookup is keyless and costs no credits itself. It does not describe the shape of the result (per-endpoint cost list vs. single number) or whether `rows` scales the reported cost.

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 no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The grammar is a bit clipped ('Credits each endpoint costs'), which slightly slows first-read parsing, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a simple three-optional-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description never indicates what the response contains (a cost per endpoint, units, whether it accounts for `rows`). That leaves an agent guessing at the return values it will need to interpret.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description only echoes `path` and `rows` without adding format or semantics beyond what the schema says (e.g. what happens to cost when rows is large). The `task` parameter is not mentioned in the description at all, relying entirely on its schema text.

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?

"Credits each endpoint costs" states a specific resource (per-endpoint credit costs) and the optional narrowing by path/row count, so an agent knows this is a pricing/cost lookup rather than an odds or stats call. No sibling tool covers costs, so explicit differentiation isn't needed, though the phrasing is slightly compressed ('Credits each endpoint costs').

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent must infer it should call this to learn the credit cost of an endpoint before making calls. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or guidance on whether omitting `path` returns the full cost table.

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