get_gap_to_leaderTrack a Formula 1 driver's gap to the race leader lap by lap. Use it to see how pace, pit stops, or traffic affect their position during a Grand Prix.
Track gap to race leader throughout the race.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gp | Yes | ||
| year | Yes | ||
| driver | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the modest detail that the gap is tracked across the whole race, and says nothing about data source (live vs historical), pagination, or resolution.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of the under-specification problem rather than a virtue.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the tool still requires three undocumented inputs with no stated identifier formats or historical/live distinction. For a three-required-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, the definition leaves an agent unable to call it correctly with confidence.
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% and all three parameters (year, gp, driver) are required, yet the description never mentions any of them. It does not establish expected formats - for example whether gp takes 'Monza' or 'Italian Grand Prix', or whether driver takes a code, surname, or full name - so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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?
States a specific verb and resource - tracking the gap to the race leader - and 'throughout the race' clarifies it returns a full-race trace rather than a snapshot. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_live_time_gaps or get_position_changes, leaving the agent to guess which one fits.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no indication of historical vs live data, and no named alternative among the many sibling gap/position tools. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.