draftkingsapi-mcp

Sportsbook odds

get_odds

Read-only

Fetches current DraftKings Sportsbook prices by event and market, including age and stale flags, to help you check fresh odds and compare lines.

Instructions

Current DraftKings Sportsbook prices by event and market, with age and stale flags. 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_odds"
  }
}

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.
`market`	No	moneyline, spread, total or a prop market.
`status`	No
`event_id`	No
`fresh_only`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 15, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

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 and data-source breadth are covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context the annotations cannot: the required DRAFTKINGS_API_KEY and where to obtain it, plus the presence of age and stale flags in the response. It does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or credit costs despite get_credit_costs existing as a sibling.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the credential prerequisite. No filler. The signup URL is slightly incidental but justifiable since a missing key is a hard blocker for invocation.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For an 8-parameter, zero-required, open-world tool with no output schema, the description leaves substantial ground uncovered: nothing about what 'age' and 'stale flags' actually signal, no pagination guidance despite a cursor param, and no note on how the optional task parameter alters results. It is adequate to recognize the tool but thin for invoking it correctly.

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 63%, with market, sport, limit, and cursor all described in-schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond naming 'event and market' as scoping axes, leaving status, fresh_only, event_id, and task undocumented in both places. Baseline 3 applies given the middling coverage.

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?

States a specific verb-ish resource: current DraftKings Sportsbook prices by event and market. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_odds_history (implied historical) and get_compare_books, though it never names an alternative explicitly. The 'current' qualifier is doing useful differentiation work against line-history tools.

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 guidance on when to use this versus get_odds_history, get_compare, or get_compare_books, all of which are plausible substitutes for price lookups. The only constraint given is the API key requirement, which is a prerequisite rather than a selection rule. An agent must infer that this is for live prices and the siblings are for history/comparison.

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