Crank Protocol

get_cross_exchange

Read-onlyIdempotent

Cross-venue snapshot for one asset (free read).

Per-venue price/bid/ask/movement (5m/1h/24h change), the pairwise spread matrix (bps), the widest current spread, and -- for wrapped-asset legs (BTC/ETH) only -- the Solana-DEX wrapped-asset premium vs the CEX-consensus reference price. Observed data, decision-support only -- spreads ignore fees, slippage, and cross-venue/bridge transfer latency; never an execution instruction. Not financial advice.

Workflow: INTELLIGENCE step -- pair with get_arb_discrepancies for the persisted, already-debounced episode history.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`asset`	Yes
`caller_id`	No
`window_minutes`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds important caveats: spreads ignore fees/slippage/latency, data is 'decision-support only', and the tool is a 'free read'. 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 summary sentence, then a bullet-like list of data fields, and ends with a workflow tip. Every sentence adds value; no fluff. Appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 output schema exists and the tool is relatively simple, the description provides enough context for the agent to understand the tool's purpose and limitations. However, the lack of parameter explanations (especially for window_minutes) slightly reduces completeness, as the agent may not know how to correctly set the time window.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions). The description fails to explain the parameters: 'asset' is implied but not explicitly defined, 'window_minutes' is not connected to the listed movement windows (5m/1h/24h), and 'caller_id' is completely unaddressed. The description relies on common sense but does not add sufficient meaning beyond parameter names.

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 it provides a 'Cross-venue snapshot for one asset (free read)' and lists specific data points (price/bid/ask/movement, spread matrix, wrapped-asset premium). It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting pairing with get_arb_discrepancies for episode history.

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 explicitly frames it as an 'INTELLIGENCE step', advises pairing with get_arb_discrepancies, and warns against using as execution instruction or financial advice. These guidelines help an agent decide when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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?