SharpEdge MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.1
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct and non-overlapping purpose: one explains the core concept, one lists features, one provides live statistics, one details pricing, and one offers sample edges. There is no ambiguity or confusion between tools, as each serves a unique informational role.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., explain_ev_betting, get_features, get_live_stats, get_pricing, get_sample_edges). This uniformity makes the tool set predictable and easy to understand, with no deviations in naming conventions.
Tool Count5/5
With 5 tools, the count is well-scoped for the server's purpose of providing information about SharpEdge AI. Each tool earns its place by covering different aspects (education, features, stats, pricing, samples) without being excessive or insufficient for the informational domain.
Completeness4/5
The tool set is largely complete for an informational server, covering key areas like education, features, live stats, pricing, and samples. A minor gap exists in the lack of tools for interactive actions (e.g., subscribing or accessing real-time edges), but this is reasonable given the server's apparent focus on providing static information.
Average 3.7/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool retrieves a feature list and enumerates 10 specific features, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that states the purpose and lists features. It's front-loaded with the core action but includes an exhaustive feature list that may be verbose for an AI agent. The listing of 10 features adds detail but could be considered extraneous if the schema or output handled this.
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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about what the tool returns and its behavior. It lists features but doesn't explain the return structure, format, or any operational constraints. For a tool with rich potential output (feature list), this is incomplete.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as no compensation is needed.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the full feature list of SharpEdge AI' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('feature list'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on features rather than betting explanations, live stats, pricing, or sample edges. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools in the description text itself.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons with sibling tools like get_pricing or get_sample_edges. The agent must infer usage based on the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns real-time statistics from a running scanner processing thousands of events every 7 minutes, which adds useful context about data freshness and scale. However, it lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format, leaving behavioral gaps. This is adequate but not comprehensive, warranting a 3.
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?
The description is two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's function and context without unnecessary details. The first sentence lists the key statistics retrieved, and the second adds operational context about SharpEdge. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though the second sentence could be slightly more concise, keeping it at a 4.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It explains what statistics are returned and provides context about the scanner's operation. However, without an output schema, it doesn't detail the return values' structure or types, and it misses behavioral aspects like error cases. This is adequate but has clear gaps, scoring a 3.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here. Since there are no parameters to explain, the baseline is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to retrieve current SharpEdge AI scan statistics including specific metrics like edges found today, arbitrage opportunities, total events scanned, and active sports. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on real-time operational statistics rather than explanations, features, pricing, or sample data. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with each sibling tool, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_features or get_sample_edges. It mentions that SharpEdge processes events every 7 minutes, which implies timeliness, but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, this scores a 2.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 key behavioral traits: returns '2-3 sample' items, includes specific data fields (sport, matchup, etc.), and clarifies these are 'representative samples, not live odds.' However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if no edges are available for a sport.
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 perfectly concise and front-loaded: the first sentence establishes the core purpose, and the second sentence adds crucial clarification about sample nature. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.
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 tool's moderate complexity (retrieving sample data with one optional parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what data fields are included and the sample nature, though it could benefit from mentioning return format or error conditions for a perfect score.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (which fully documents the optional 'sport' filter with enum values and behavior when omitted). No additional parameter semantics are provided.
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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get sample +EV betting opportunities') and resource ('SharpEdge AI finds'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying these are 'representative samples, not live odds' (unlike get_live_stats) and focuses on edge quality demonstration (unlike explain_ev_betting which explains concepts).
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 about when to use this tool: to get 'representative samples' of betting edges for quality demonstration. It implicitly distinguishes from get_live_stats by noting 'not live odds,' but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool provides educational explanations and mentions specific methods (de-vigging, sharp book reference lines, Kelly Criterion), which adds useful context. However, it does not cover behavioral aspects like response format, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a targeted user benefit. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying the tool's educational nature and audience, with no redundant or vague phrasing. It efficiently conveys necessary information without excess verbiage.
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 tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, usage context, and key topics, which suffices for an educational tool. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral details (e.g., response format) to achieve full completeness.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'topic' parameter fully documented via enum and description. The description does not add specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but it implicitly supports the parameter by mentioning topics like 'de-vigging' and 'Kelly Criterion.' With high schema coverage and only one optional parameter, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description's alignment with parameter topics justifies a slightly higher score.
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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: to provide 'a clear, educational explanation of what +EV (positive expected value) betting is, how it works, and how SharpEdge AI uses de-vigging, sharp book reference lines, and the Kelly Criterion to find profitable edges.' It uses specific verbs ('Get', 'explain') and resources (+EV betting concepts), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_features or get_sample_edges by focusing on educational content rather than data retrieval.
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 for when to use this tool: 'Great for users who want to understand the math behind profitable sports betting.' It implicitly suggests this is for educational purposes rather than operational tasks like get_live_stats or get_sample_edges. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what information is returned (pricing tiers with specific details), but doesn't mention whether this requires authentication, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. The description adds value by specifying the content but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of 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?
The description is efficiently structured in two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and lists pricing tiers with specific details, while the second sentence adds important context about feature comparison. Every sentence earns its place.
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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides complete context about what information is returned. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning the response format or whether authentication is required, but for a simple pricing lookup tool, it's largely adequate.
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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and instead focuses on the semantic content of the response, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.
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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get') and resources ('SharpEdge AI pricing information'), including detailed content about free tier, weekly plan, and monthly plan. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_features' or 'get_sample_edges' by focusing specifically on pricing information.
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 implicitly suggests usage when pricing information is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_features' or provide exclusions. It offers clear context about what information is included, but lacks explicit guidance on when-not scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![sharpedge-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/therealjlc1/sharpedge-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/therealjlc1/sharpedge-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![sharpedge-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/therealjlc1/sharpedge-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/therealjlc1/sharpedge-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/therealjlc1/sharpedge-mcp'

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