Skip to main content
Glama
rapidoddsapi

rapidoddsapi-mcp

Official
by rapidoddsapi

find_value_bets

Identify betting odds that exceed fair market value by removing bookmaker margins. Compares bookmakers to surface positive expected value opportunities across sports.

Instructions

Find prices that beat fair value.

Bookmakers price in a margin, so their odds sum to more than certainty. Removing it leaves a fair price, and any book paying more than that is positive expected value.

devig says where the fair price comes from, and is worth explaining to the user rather than just picking:

"all" the default. Every bookmaker fetched is de-vigged on its own and the results averaged. Needs no view on which book is sharp, works on markets Pinnacle does not price, and is the one to use unless there is a reason not to. a book name "Pinnacle" measures every other book against that one. A sharp book runs thin margins and moves fast, so its prices track true probability more closely than an average does. Tighter, but only where that book prices the market, and it cannot itself appear in the results.

Fetches odds first, so it costs the same as get_odds: ceil(number of bookmakers / 5) credits for the single market. Defaults to ten bookmakers, 2 credits. Naming a book puts it in the request automatically, since the calculation is impossible without it.

Same markets as find_arbitrage: head_to_head and its period variants, draw_no_bet, totals, handicaps, team totals and player props.

min_edge is a percentage, default 2.0. Smaller edges are usually inside the error of the fair price rather than real value.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
devigNoall
sportYes
marketNohead_to_head
min_edgeNo
bookmakersNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses cost behavior ('fetches odds first', credit formula), defaults, and that a named devig book is automatically included. It also explains min_edge's statistical rationale. However, it does not mention pagination, error handling, or return structure, though an output schema exists to cover returns.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, followed by logically grouped details (devig, cost, markets, min_edge). Every sentence adds relevant value without fluff. The formatting with code blocks and bullet-like indentation enhances readability.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and an output schema. The description explains the purpose, costing, devig choices, market scope, and min_edge semantics, making it nearly self-sufficient. It does not explicitly state which sports are supported or how to pass bookmakers, but those may be inferred from the schema and sibling tools.

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 schema provides 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining devig (with distinct modes), min_edge, and bookmakers default. It also lists supported markets, which adds meaning to the market parameter. The sport parameter remains unexplained, but the description covers the other four params effectively.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Find prices that beat fair value') and distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_odds and find_arbitrage by clarifying its focus on positive expected value. It also details the devig methods, which further solidifies its unique purpose.

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 provides clear context on when to use the 'all' vs. a specific book name for devig, explaining trade-offs and constraints (e.g., a named book cannot appear in results). It mentions same markets as find_arbitrage, but does not explicitly contrast when to use this tool over find_arbitrage or get_odds, so it lacks a direct exclusion clause.

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/rapidoddsapi/rapidoddsapi-mcp'

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