Crank Protocol

authorize_session_signer

Idempotent

Authorize a delegated session signer for an agent wallet (non-custodial).

signer_pubkey is a keypair the USER creates and holds -- ONLY its PUBLIC key ever crosses this call (hard rule 1). Once authorized, calls that carry this signer_pubkey are trade-only: the gate rejects any transfer/ withdraw/close-account/authority-change instruction targeting a destination outside the wallet's own accounts (docs/ SESSION_SIGNER_DESIGN.md). capabilities: subset of swap|perp|lend|stake, empty/omitted = full default set. expires_at: optional ISO 8601 hard expiry. Effective on the very next call using this signer_pubkey. On a Lane 2 wallet this raises BROWSER_CONFIRMATION_REQUIRED -- call request_session_signer_authorization instead: minting a signer is a trust grant and must be owner-approved in the browser, never in-chat.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`label`	No
`caller_id`	No
`expires_at`	No
`capabilities`	No
`signer_pubkey`	Yes
`wallet_address`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses behaviors beyond annotations: non-custodial nature, that only the public key crosses, the effect on subsequent calls ('Effective on the very next call'), and the requirement for owner approval on Lane 2. This adds significant context not captured by readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, or destructiveHint.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is dense but each sentence provides essential information (purpose, parameter constraints, behavioral notes, alternative). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then elaborates. While somewhat verbose, it avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage conditions, parameter semantics, side effects, and alternative paths. It does not need to explain return values since the output schema is provided. No critical gaps remain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds meaning for key parameters: signer_pubkey (explains it's a public key from a user-created keypair), capabilities (subset of swap|perp|lend|stake, default full set), and expires_at (optional ISO 8601 hard expiry). It does not explain label, caller_id, or wallet_address, but these are likely self-explanatory; overall it substantially compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Authorize a delegated session signer for an agent wallet') and distinguishes it from the sibling 'request_session_signer_authorization' by explaining when to use that alternative. This enables an agent to differentiate the tool without ambiguity.

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?

It explicitly provides a condition for when to use this tool vs. the alternative ('On a Lane 2 wallet this raises BROWSER_CONFIRMATION_REQUIRED -- call request_session_signer_authorization instead') and details the constraints of authorization (trade-only, no transfers/withdrawals beyond wallet accounts). This gives clear guidance on appropriate usage.

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?