Skip to main content
Glama
proplineapi

PropLine

Official

propline_get_resolution_summary

Retrieve aggregated counts of player props graded against real box scores over the last N days, including total settled props, games, sports, and per-sport breakdowns. Useful for verifying coverage volume.

Instructions

Free-tier endpoint. Returns the factual volume of player props PropLine has graded against real box scores over the last N days (aggregated counts only): total graded/settled, games, sports covered, plus per-sport and top-market breakdowns. Useful for: 'how much graded prop data does PropLine have, what's the coverage'. A coverage proof, never a profitability claim.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNoLook-back window, 1-90. Defaults to 30.

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:220-242 (registration)
    Tool registration entry in the tools array: defines name, description, inputSchema, and handler for 'propline_get_resolution_summary'. Input schema accepts an optional 'days' number.
    {
      name: "propline_get_resolution_summary",
      description:
        "Free-tier endpoint. Returns the factual volume of player props " +
        "PropLine has graded against real box scores over the last N days " +
        "(aggregated counts only): total graded/settled, games, sports " +
        "covered, plus per-sport and top-market breakdowns. Useful for: " +
        "'how much graded prop data does PropLine have, what's the " +
        "coverage'. A coverage proof, never a profitability claim.",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          days: {
            type: "number",
            description: "Look-back window, 1-90. Defaults to 30.",
          },
        },
        required: [],
        additionalProperties: false,
      },
      handler: (args) =>
        client().getResolutionSummary({ days: args.days as number | undefined }),
    },
  • Handler lambda that delegates to client().getResolutionSummary(), passing the 'days' argument.
    handler: (args) =>
      client().getResolutionSummary({ days: args.days as number | undefined }),
  • Input schema for the tool: object type with optional 'days' property (number, 1-90, default 30), no required fields.
    inputSchema: {
      type: "object",
      properties: {
        days: {
          type: "number",
          description: "Look-back window, 1-90. Defaults to 30.",
        },
      },
      required: [],
      additionalProperties: false,
    },
  • getResolutionSummary method on PropLineClient: makes GET request to /v1/markets/resolution-summary with optional 'days' query parameter.
    getResolutionSummary(opts: { days?: number } = {}): Promise<unknown> {
      return this.request(`/v1/markets/resolution-summary`, {
        days: opts.days,
      });
    }
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses it's a free-tier endpoint and returns only aggregated counts, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication, error conditions, or data freshness. This leaves some behavioral gaps.

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?

The description is concise with three well-structured sentences, front-loading the key fact 'Free-tier endpoint' and clearly listing output components. No redundant information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the simple schema and no output schema, the description reasonably covers the tool's function by listing output elements. It could elaborate on the response format but is adequate for most use cases.

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 100% with the 'days' parameter fully described (type, range, default). The description's mention of 'over the last N days' adds no new information beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool as returning aggregated counts of graded props, listing specific metrics like total graded/settled, games, sports per sport, and top-market breakdowns. It distinguishes itself from profitability claims and aligns with the tool name 'resolution_summary'.

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 explicitly states the use case: answering 'how much graded prop data does PropLine have, what's the coverage', and clarifies it is not for profitability. While it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, the guidance is sufficient for typical scenarios.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/proplineapi/propline-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server