SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev

ESPN NASCAR Cup Series race list for one date

dev_espn_nascar

Read-only

ESPN NASCAR Cup Series race list for one date with the finishing order of the first drivers (position, driver name, winner flag), race name, venue and state, from ESPN's public site JSON. Related tools on this server, for a different need: dev_espn_f1_results when you need ESPN Formula 1 race list for one date with the finishing; dev_espn_college_football when you need ESPN college football scoreboard for one date: every game. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "dev_espn_nascar"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`top`	No	How many finishers per race, 1 to 40 (default 10)
`date`	No	Date YYYY-MM-DD (default: yesterday UTC)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	No
`count`	No
`races`	No
`source`	No
`checkedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations cannot: the source is ESPN's public site JSON and each successful call costs $0.002 USDC via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc, with failed calls free. It says nothing about rate limits, throttling, or behavior when a date has no race, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, with fields and source following in the same sentence, then the routing sentence and pricing. It is dense but every clause carries information; the related-tools sentence is long and slightly list-like, but it does real routing work rather than padding.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it still names the payload fields and data provenance. Both parameters are optional with schema defaults, pricing is disclosed, and source is stated; only empty-day behavior and any rate limits are absent, which is minor for a two-optional-parameter read tool.

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%, so both parameters (top with its 1-40 range and default, date with YYYY-MM-DD and yesterday-UTC default) are fully documented in the schema. The description only hints at semantics by framing the output as 'the first drivers' in finishing order, without adding format or edge-case detail for either parameter. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('ESPN NASCAR Cup Series race list for one date') plus the exact payload fields (position, driver name, winner flag, race name, venue, state). It also names the data source and explicitly separates itself from dev_espn_f1_results and dev_espn_college_football, so an agent can pick it without opening schemas.

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?

Names concrete alternatives and the need that selects them ('when you need ESPN Formula 1 race list', 'when you need ESPN college football scoreboard'), which gives real routing guidance. It stops short of an explicit exclusion against the closer sibling dev_nascar_racing_reference, so the agent must infer when a different NASCAR source is preferable.

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

All SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?