Skip to main content
Glama

Odds Api

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Get Event Odds

get_event_odds
Read-onlyIdempotent

Odds for a single event — allows richer markets (player props, alt lines). Higher quota cost per call.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
marketsNoIncludes player_props_* markets for some leagues
regionsNo
event_idYes
sport_keyYes
odds_formatNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoEvent ID
away_teamNoAway team name
home_teamNoHome team name
sport_keyNoSport key
bookmakersNo
sport_titleNoSport title
commence_timeNoEvent start time

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "event_id": "3735601",
+    "sport_key": "americanfootball_nfl"
+  },
+  {
+    "event_id": "3735602",
+    "markets": "player_props_pts",
+    "regions": "us",
+    "sport_key": "basketball_nba"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "away_team": {
+      "description": "Away team name",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "bookmakers": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "key": {
+            "description": "Bookmaker key",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "last_update": {
+            "description": "Last odds update time",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "markets": {
+            "items": {
+              "properties": {
+                "key": {
+                  "description": "Market type (h2h, spreads, player_props_*)",
+                  "type": "string"
+                },
+                "last_update": {
+                  "description": "Market last update time",
+                  "type": "string"
+                },
+                "outcomes": {
+                  "items": {
+                    "properties": {
+                      "name": {
+                        "description": "Outcome name",
+                        "type": "string"
+                      },
+                      "point": {
+                        "description": "Spread/total point (if applicable)",
+                        "type": "number"
+                      },
+                      "price": {
+                        "description": "Odds value",
+                        "type": "number"
+                      }
+                    },
+                    "type": "object"
+                  },
+                  "type": "array"
+                }
+              },
+              "type": "object"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          },
+          "title": {
+            "description": "Bookmaker name",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "commence_time": {
+      "description": "Event start time",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "home_team": {
+      "description": "Home team name",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "description": "Event ID",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "sport_key": {
+      "description": "Sport key",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "sport_title": {
+      "description": "Sport title",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds value with 'Higher quota cost per call' and scope ('single event'). No contradictions.

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?

Single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Efficient and to the point.

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?

With output schema present, return format is covered. Description provides core purpose and cost hint, but could elaborate on parameter usage or when to prefer over sibling tools.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 20% (only 'markets' has description). Description adds context for 'markets' (player props, alt lines) but ignores other 4 parameters. Insufficient compensation for low 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?

Description clearly states 'Odds for a single event', distinguishing it from 'get_events' and 'get_odds' by emphasizing richer markets like player props. Verb and resource are specific.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Implies use when richer markets needed via 'allows richer markets' and 'Higher quota cost per call', but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or differentiation from sibling 'get_odds'.

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

All Odds Api toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route to the same 5,724 tools with only subtle behavioral differences, and bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and polymarket_kalshi_spread heavily overlap around prediction-market opportunity discovery. entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes also fan out across the same SEC/news/patent sources, making selection ambiguous for agents.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming mixes multiple conventions: snake_case verb_noun for odds tools (get_events, list_sports), vendor-prefixed clusters (ask_pipeworx_*, pipeworx_*, polymarket_*), and a few reversed noun-verb names like bet_research. CamelCase is used in ai_visibility_check and generate_llms_txt adds another style. Only the polymarket_* and pipeworx_* families are internally consistent, but the overall pattern is chaotic.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is well beyond the typical well-scoped server, and the count feels inflated by unrelated meta-tools (suggest_questions, discover_tools, pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency, remember/recall/forget) that have nothing to do with the server's stated 'Odds Api' purpose. The actual odds surface is only ~5 tools, so the vast majority of the catalog is off-scope padding.

Completeness3/5

The core odds domain is well covered: list_sports, get_events, get_odds, get_event_odds, and get_scores form a coherent lifecycle, plus quota introspection. However, for the server's actual broad-research scope there are noticeable gaps (e.g., no direct single-filing fetch tool despite heavy SEC coverage, a lone npm-dependency tool with no surrounding ecosystem, and no historical/past-odds endpoint), and the heterogeneous domains make completeness uneven.

Resources