Skip to main content
Glama

Odds Api

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Send Pipeworx Feedback

pipeworx_feedback

Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist. Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data (bug), when a tool you wish existed isn't in the catalog (feature/data_gap), or when something worked surprisingly well (praise). ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection — if the tool came from a different MCP server in your client (another vendor's Gmail, Splunk, Slack, etc. connector), we cannot fix it and reporting it here only delays you; file it with that server instead. Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists. Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt. Filing without an account returns a claim_token; pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"}) to read whether it was fixed and what changed. The team reads digests daily and signal directly affects roadmap. Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day. Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNobug = something broke or returned wrong data. feature = a new tool or capability you wish existed. data_gap = data Pipeworx does not currently expose. praise = positive note. other = anything else.
contextNoOptional structured context: which tool, pack, or vertical this relates to.
messageNoYour feedback in plain text. Be specific (which tool, what error, what data was missing). 1-2 sentences typical, 2000 chars max.
claim_tokenNoRead the reply to a report you filed earlier: pass the `pwfb_…` token that filing returned, with no other arguments. Returns the status and, once resolved, what actually changed.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / claim_token
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Read the reply to a report you filed earlier: pass the `pwfb_…` token that filing returned, with no other arguments. Returns the status and, once resolved, what actually changed.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "type",
-  "message"
-]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes far beyond the annotations by disclosing the claim_token workflow for tracking feedback, the daily digest review, rate limiting (5 per identifier per day), free usage, and quota exemption. This gives the agent critical behavioral context like the fact that filing without an account returns a token for later status checks.

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?

Though long, every sentence earns its place by covering a distinct aspect: purpose, use cases, scope exclusion, token behavior, team process, rate limits, and cost. The structure is front-loaded with the core action and then flows logically from usage to mechanics, with no filler or repetition.

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?

This is a feedback tool with 4 parameters, all optional, and no output schema. The description supplies the missing context: return behavior (claim_token), lifecycle (daily review, status checking), restrictions (rate limit, scope), and the necessary distinction between Pipeworx vs foreign tools. It is fully self-contained and agent-actionable.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it clarifies that claim_token should be used with no other arguments to read a previous report, instructs how to phrase the message ('in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt'), and defines the relationship between feedback types. This extra nuance justifies above baseline.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It immediately distinguishes from siblings by describing the feedback purpose and explicitly scoping to Pipeworx tools, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance with concrete examples (bug, feature/data_gap, praise). It also gives a clear when-not-to-use exclusion ('if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead') and even directs users to check the connection's tool list if unsure, making alternative handling explicit.

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