Crank Protocol

clear_agnta_grant

Idempotent

Remove a wallet's AGNTA DelegationGrant cap opt-in (non-custodial control plane).

LOOSENS enforcement (removes a cap constraining every value-bearing call on top of WalletPolicy) -- for a Lane 2 wallet this raises BROWSER_CONFIRMATION_REQUIRED: call request_agnta_grant_clear instead and have the user approve it in their own browser. A non-Lane-2 wallet clears directly.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`caller_id`	No
`wallet_address`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true), the description explains the effect: 'LOOSENS enforcement (removes a cap constraining every value-bearing call)' and clarifies the Lane-2 behavior. It doesn't fully specify return values, but the output schema exists, so that's not required.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is informative but somewhat verbose and run-on. It includes nested clauses and awkward capitalization (e.g., 'LOOSENS enforcement...'). It could be condensed into clearer sentences without losing meaning.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers the key context: the effect on enforcement, the Lane-2 exception, and the recommended alternative. It doesn't mention prerequisites or edge cases, but the presence of an output schema mitigates the need for return details.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The input schema lists 'caller_id' and 'wallet_address' with no descriptions, and the tool description does not explain either parameter. The wallet_address is implied by the context, but caller_id's role is unclear. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the names, and schema coverage is 0%.

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 the action: 'Remove a wallet's AGNTA DelegationGrant cap opt-in' and specifies the resource (wallet's cap). It differentiates from the sibling 'set_agnta_grant' and conditionally from 'request_agnta_grant_clear', making the 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 provides when to use this tool vs. the alternative: 'for a Lane 2 wallet this raises BROWSER_CONFIRMATION_REQUIRED: call request_agnta_grant_clear instead' and states 'A non-Lane-2 wallet clears directly.' This gives clear selection criteria.

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?