cuporacle-mcp

World Cup consensus odds

wc_odds

Read-only

Get consensus head-to-head odds and de-vigged implied probabilities for a single World Cup match using its football-data match ID.

Instructions

Consensus head-to-head odds (mean decimal price across books) and de-vigged implied probabilities for one match. Free. Odds appear only once both teams are known.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "matchId": "<matchId>"
    },
    "name": "wc_odds"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`matchId`	Yes	football-data match id (from wc_fixtures).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`h2h`	Yes
`implied`	Yes
`matchId`	Yes
`snapshot`	Yes
`away_team`	Yes
`home_team`	Yes
`books_count`	Yes
`snapshot_utc`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate read-only and open-world hints; the description adds that the tool is free and data is conditional on teams being known, providing valuable behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and key constraints (free, timing) without any filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the simple input schema (1 param) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what data is returned, that it's free, and when data is available.

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?

The single parameter matchId is fully documented in the schema with description, and the description does not add further semantics beyond restating 'for one match'.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states it provides consensus head-to-head odds and de-vigged implied probabilities for a single match, using specific terms that distinguish it from sibling tools like wc_fixtures or wc_edge.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description says it's free and odds appear only once teams are known, implying when to use; but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools, though sibling context helps.

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

Deploy Server