Crank Protocol

fund_wallet

Destructive

Fund a wallet with fiat via MoonPay (card/bank/Apple Pay -> USDC).

Returns a hosted checkout_url for the user to complete payment + a session_id to poll with get_onramp_status. Purchased USDC settles directly to wallet_address (non-custodial). payment_method: card | bank | apple_pay. The fee is charged on amount_usd notional past the daily free tier (x402 payment_header).

idempotency_key (optional): a client-generated UUID. Retrying with the same key + same args replays the original result (same checkout_url/session_id) instead of creating a second MoonPay session.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`currency`	No	USDC
`caller_id`	No
`amount_usd`	Yes
`pay_in_crank`	No
`payment_header`	No
`payment_method`	No	card
`wallet_address`	Yes
`idempotency_key`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: non-custodial nature, fee calculation based on notional past a free tier, idempotency replay behavior when an idempotency_key is supplied, and the returned checkout_url and session_id. This goes beyond the annotations (which only indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, destructive hints) and enriches the agent's understanding of side effects.

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 relatively short but contains some cryptic elements (e.g., '(x500 payment_header)' appears to be a placeholder or typo that reduces clarity). It avoids redundancy, but the awkward phrasing around the fee and payment_header could be smoother.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool has an output schema and 8 parameters, the description covers the core flow and return values but lacks detailed explanations for several parameters and does not provide usage scenarios or edge cases. It is adequate for basic understanding but not fully comprehensive for an agent to invoke it correctly in varied contexts.

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?

The description explains some parameters (amount_usd, payment_method with allowed values, wallet_address implicit, idempotency_key replay) but leaves several others unexplained: currency, caller_id, pay_in_crank, payment_header. Since the schema itself has no descriptions (0% coverage), any added meaning is helpful, but it's incomplete for a tool with 8 parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Fund'), a resource ('wallet'), and the method (via MoonPay) with a clear direction (fiat to USDC). It distinguishes itself from offramp tools by indicating the direction, and the mention of MoonPay provides a concrete implementation detail.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage (funding a wallet with fiat) but does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives like offramp_to_fiat or other payment tools. No conditional guidance or comparison to siblings is provided, leaving the decision partially implicit.

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?