Crank Protocol

get_contrarian_signals

Read-onlyIdempotent

Contrarian (crowded) + uncertain assets across the window (PLATINUM premium).

Scans the classified intelligence signals over the last window_hours and returns assets where source agreement is very high -- a one-sided, crowded positioning flagged as a potential contrarian condition (with the side a contrarian would take) -- and assets where agreement is very low (uncertain). With asset set, returns just that asset's assessment. PLATINUM-tier: covered by a Platinum $CRANK-staker subscription or a verified x402 payment_header (PAYMENT_REQUIRED otherwise); the billing outcome is in billing. Descriptive signal only, not a recommendation. Not financial advice.

Workflow: INTELLIGENCE step -- surface crowded trades to fade or uncertain assets to avoid before committing to a regime/allocation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`asset`	No
`caller_id`	No
`window_hours`	No
`payment_header`	No
`wallet_address`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint false. The description adds behavioral details: scans over window_hours, returns assets with high/low agreement, billing outcome in 'billing', and states it's not a recommendation. No contradiction 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the main purpose and includes necessary details (billing, disclaimer). It is organized but slightly long. Each sentence adds value, though some could be more concise.

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?

Covers main functionality and billing context, but missing descriptions for caller_id and wallet_address parameters. With 0% schema coverage, more detail is needed for full understanding. Output schema exists but is not shown, so return values are partially explained.

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%, so description must compensate. It explains window_hours (time window), asset (filters to one asset), and payment_header (via x402 payment). However, it does not describe caller_id or wallet_address, leaving gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool scans for contrarian (crowded) and uncertain assets based on source agreement, with a specific verb 'scans' and resource 'classified intelligence signals'. It distinguishes itself by mentioning 'PLATINUM premium' and 'contrarian' vs. other signal tools, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_signals or get_ml_signal.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides context: 'Workflow: INTELLIGENCE step -- surface crowded trades to fade or uncertain assets to avoid before committing to a regime/allocation.' This implies when to use it (before committing) and that it's descriptive only. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tools.

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?