Crank Protocol

get_arb_discrepancies

Read-onlyIdempotent

Persisted cross-venue discrepancy episodes (free read).

Already-debounced cross_exchange signals (each required >= N consecutive polls above the discrepancy threshold to exist at all), filtered to spread_bps >= min_spread_bps and optionally to assets, within window_hours. One entry per episode: venue pair, spread, first/last seen, persistence, reference price. Observed data, decision-support only -- ignores fees, slippage, and transfer latency; never an execution instruction. Not financial advice.

Workflow: INTELLIGENCE step -- pair with get_cross_exchange for the current live-ish read on a specific asset.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`assets`	No
`caller_id`	No
`window_hours`	No
`min_spread_bps`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, etc. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the data is 'already-debounced' requiring consecutive polls, and is 'decision-support only.' No contradictions with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise technical details, disclaimers, and workflow integration. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown), the description need not detail return values. It explains episode content (venue pair, spread, times, reference price), limitations, and integration with a sibling tool. Combined with annotations, this provides a complete picture.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'assets,' 'min_spread_bps,' and 'window_hours' with clear semantics. However, 'caller_id' is not referenced. Despite this omission, the description provides sufficient meaning for the majority of 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 clearly defines the tool as retrieving 'Persisted cross-venue discrepancy episodes (free read),' explicitly distinguishing it from the sibling 'get_cross_exchange' by noting it is persisted and debounced versus a 'current live-ish read.' The verb 'get' and resource 'arb discrepancies' are specific and 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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: it is an 'INTELLIGENCE step' to be paired with 'get_cross_exchange' for live reads. It also states limitations ('ignores fees, slippage, and transfer latency; never an execution instruction'), clearly defining when not to use the tool.

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?