get_speed_trap_comparisonCompare speed trap data across all Formula 1 drivers for a selected year and Grand Prix, with optional session. Identify which driver posts the top speed at each trap.
Compare speed trap data across all drivers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gp | Yes | ||
| year | Yes | ||
| session | No | Q |
| 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 a safe read-only, idempotent, open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'across all drivers' scope but does not disclose auth needs, rate limits, or whether this is historical versus live data.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no waste. However, its extreme brevity places the burden on the schema and annotations to supply nearly all invocation-relevant structure.
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 tool requires year and gp and has no schema parameter descriptions, yet the description provides no guidance on those inputs. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description is still too sparse for a three-parameter comparison tool.
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 the three parameters. It does not explain the required year and gp parameters, nor the optional session parameter defaulting to 'Q.' Only the phrase 'across all drivers' implicitly clarifies that no driver parameter is needed.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Compare speed trap data' and scopes it to 'across all drivers.' This is clearer than a tautology, but it does not distinguish this tool from sibling alternatives like get_speed_traps or get_live_speed_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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to choose this tool over siblings such as get_speed_traps or get_live_speed_comparison. The sentence states purpose but not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.