draftkingsapi-mcp

DFS contests

get_dfs_contests

Read-only

Retrieve DraftKings DFS contests with entry fees, prize pools, and entry counts; filter by sport or slate and paginate results to compare available contests.

Instructions

DraftKings DFS contests with entry fee, prize pool and entries. 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_dfs_contests"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`task`	No	Optional: the user's task in one plain sentence, nothing personal. Helps the API return what fits.
`limit`	No	Rows to return, at most 100.
`sport`	No	Sport code in upper case, for example NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, NCAAF, NCAAB, SOCCER.
`cursor`	No	pagination.next_cursor from the previous page, unchanged.
`slate_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 15, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the DRAFTKINGS_API_KEY requirement and pointing to a free sign-up page, which an agent needs before calling. It says nothing about pagination behavior, result volume, or rate limits, so it adds only moderate context beyond the annotations.

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 that front-load the resource and the returned fields, with the auth prerequisite second. Nothing is padded, though the sign-up URL is slightly promotional rather than strictly operational.

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 five optional parameters, no output schema, and no parameter documented in prose beyond what the schema covers, the description is adequate but thin. It tells an agent what the tool returns but not scope (all contests vs. sport-filtered), default limit behavior, or pagination semantics.

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 80%, so the schema already documents task, limit, sport, and cursor; slate_id is the one undocumented parameter. The description adds no parameter detail and only lists output fields, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The description names the specific resource (DraftKings DFS contests) and the fields returned (entry fee, prize pool, entries), which lets an agent distinguish it from get_dfs_players and get_dfs_slates by resource. It never states a verb like 'list' or 'fetch', and offers no explicit sibling routing, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_dfs_slates or get_dfs_players instead, and no described preconditions beyond the API key. The only context given is auth-related, which is useful but is not usage guidance.

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