draftkingsapi-mcp

History coverage (keyless)

get_history_coverage

Read-only

Check when stored line history begins for each league and view capture counts, so you can confirm historical data coverage before analysis. No key or credits required.

Instructions

When stored history starts for each league, with capture counts. 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_history_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

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the endpoint is keyless and consumes no credits, which affects whether an agent should reach for it. It does not describe the shape of the returned counts or how leagues are keyed, which keeps it from a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, the payload stated first and the access/cost constraint second. Nothing is redundant and no filler is present.

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 no-argument read tool, the description covers purpose and cost but omits the return shape, which matters here because there is no output schema. An agent knows why to call it but not what structure of leagues/counts to expect.

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 the single optional 'task' parameter is well documented in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 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 a specific resource and payload: when stored history begins for each league, plus capture counts. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from odds/history siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts with get_coverage, which by name sounds closely related.

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?

'No key needed, no credits' is an access/cost fact, not a usage rule. There is no statement of when to call this versus get_coverage or get_odds_history, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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