Odds-API MCP Server

Official

by odds-api-io

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Remote

Request quota

get_usage

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check the API key's hourly request limit, remaining requests, and reset time to plan bulk work or diagnose 429 rate-limit errors.

Instructions

Hourly request limit, requests remaining and reset time for this API key, read from the rate-limit headers of the latest API call in this session. If no call has been made yet it calls get_sports once, which counts as one request. Use it to plan bulk work or to explain a 429.

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_usage"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.8.3Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the data source, the implication that values are only as fresh as the last call, and a non-obvious side effect: if no call has been made, it fires get_sports once and that counts against the quota. The annotations only declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive; the quota-consuming fallback call is exactly the kind of behavior an agent could not infer.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the fallback caveat, then when to use it. No filler and no repetition of the title or annotations.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the three returned values. For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with a single documented side effect, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description spends no words restating an empty schema.

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?

States the exact resource and fields returned (hourly request limit, requests remaining, reset time) plus the data source (rate-limit headers of the latest API call in this session). That level of specificity is enough to distinguish it from every sibling, none of which report quota.

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?

Gives two concrete use cases: planning bulk work and explaining a 429. It does not name a competing tool to use instead, but no sibling offers this information, so there is little routing ambiguity to resolve.

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