Crank Protocol

asset_classification

Read-onlyIdempotent

Classify a token: crypto / equity / wrapped_major / lst / stablecoin.

Provide token_address (mint) or a known symbol. Tokenized securities (xStocks, Ondo) classify as 'equity', which subjects strategies to the SEC framework guardrails (neutral tools, per-execution confirmation for discretionary types). Registry-authoritative with a static + symbol fallback. Factual classification only -- not a recommendation.

Workflow: RISK/COMPLIANCE step -- classify before executing; 'equity' forces geo-gating + per-execution confirm. Pairs with get_disclaimers. See get_trading_workflow.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`symbol`	No
`caller_id`	No
`token_address`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds: 'Registry-authoritative with a static + symbol fallback' and 'Factual classification only—not a recommendation,' clarifying data sourcing and non-recommendation nature. Slightly lacks detail on response format, but output schema exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise at ~6 lines, front-loaded with the classification purpose, and well-structured: categories, input, special cases, data source, workflow. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (compliance implications), the description covers purpose, input, special behavior, workflow integration, and pairing. Output schema exists for return values, so no gap. Aids correct agent decision-making fully.

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 0%; description partially compensates by naming 'token_address (mint)' and 'symbol' and their usage. However, the third parameter 'caller_id' is not explained, leaving a gap. Adds value for two params but incomplete.

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?

The description starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Classify a token' followed by the specific categories, distinguishing it from siblings like get_token_classification. It also details special cases (e.g., tokenized securities as equity), making purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use—'RISK/COMPLIANCE step—classify before executing'—and consequences of 'equity' classification (geo-gating + confirm). Also pairs with get_disclaimers and references get_trading_workflow, providing complete usage context.

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

All Crank Protocol tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools overlap significantly: close_perp_position vs perp_close, get_leaderboard vs get_score_leaderboard vs get_strategy_leaderboard, get_venue_status vs get_all_venues_status, send_token_social vs bulk_send_social, and get_crank_score vs get_score. Several read-only tools have nearly identical purposes, and the descriptions do not always clarify boundaries.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_balances, create_strategy, set_alert, list_webhooks). However, there are deviations like 'lst_swap', 'jupiter_swap', 'flash_loan', 'sr_backtest', and the use of both 'get_' and 'list_' for reads, plus category prefixes like 'perp_' and 'strategy_' that vary in order. Overall still readable and predictable.

Tool Count1/5

177 tools is an extreme count for any server, far exceeding the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. Even a full DeFi platform does not need this many separate operations; the surface is overwhelming and clearly not well-scoped.

Completeness3/5

The domain (Solana DeFi trading) is covered extensively across swaps, perps, lending, staking, strategies, signals, and support. However, there are notable gaps: no lend_withdraw, no direct way to close a lending position, no spot order cancellation (though aggregator-based swaps may not need it), and a general lack of tiered account management. The huge number of tools makes it hard to identify missing lifecycle steps.

Resources

Need Help?