Calculate the time lost when pitting at a circuit by adding in-lap, pit-lane, and out-lap times then subtracting a regular lap, using real FastF1 data.
Time lost by pitting at this circuit (in-lap + pit lane + out-lap, minus a green-flag lap), from real FastF1 data when available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| season | No | ||
| circuit | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Even though no annotations are provided, the description usefully discloses the calculation method, the data source ('real FastF1 data'), and a limitation ('when available'). It does not detail fallback behavior when data is unavailable, but for a read-only getter the core behavioral traits are well covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, tightly written sentence with the formula in parentheses is efficient and easy to parse. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description defines the output concept well and the output schema exists, so return formatting need not be explained. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, the description leaves room for ambiguity about what happens when FastF1 data is unavailable and how season affects the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains the meaning of the result with respect to the circuit, but it does not clarify the 'season' parameter, valid circuit values, or defaults beyond what the schema already shows.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names the exact metric ('time lost by pitting at this circuit') and defines it explicitly with a formula. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pit_window or simulate_undercut_overcut.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many strategy-related siblings. It implies a use case through its purpose but does not state any context, prerequisites, or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.