get_live_speed_comparisonCompare live top speeds at each timing point (I1, I2, finish line, speed trap) for all drivers in an active F1 session.
Live best speed at each measurement point (I1, I2, FL, ST) for every driver. No auth required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 establish the full safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the description's main addition is 'No auth required'. That is genuinely useful behavioral context, but nothing about data freshness, live-update cadence, or return scope is disclosed.
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?
Two tight sentences with the core scope front-loaded and the auth note trailing. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and with zero params there is no input burden. The description is complete for a simple live-data read, though a single clause distinguishing it from get_live_speed_trap would close the remaining gap.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for; baseline 4 applies. No input meaning is lost.
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 ('Live best speed at each measurement point'), and clarifies the exact measurement points (I1, I2, FL, ST) plus scope ('for every driver'). It distinguishes itself reasonably from the name alone, but does not explicitly contrast with close siblings like get_live_speed_trap or get_speed_trap_comparison.
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 scope ('every driver', live timing) implies when the tool applies, and 'No auth required' is a useful usage note. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or reference to the sibling speed tools it could be confused with, leaving selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.