Crank Protocol

get_ilo_adoption_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

The ILO adoption gate -- one machine-checkable readiness read (free).

Published Engaij, Inc. policy: the ILO proceeds only once Crank has 1,000 active users, where an active user has at least 5 executed Crank transactions inside a rolling 7-day window. Signups do not count. Returns gate_met (active_users >= 1000), active_users, near_active_users, users_with_any_tx and the pinned transaction definition. A transaction is an EXECUTED trade only -- a recorded swap (broadcast signature required), a perp open, or a user-initiated perp close; reads, quotes, unexecuted intents, paper trades, liquidations and devnet activity never count. cluster=devnet exposes the same metric for pre-launch observability; the gate itself is the mainnet number. Aggregate counts only, no per-wallet data. Informational readiness metric; not a promise of any launch, outcome or timeline.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cluster`	No		mainnet
`caller_id`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive. The description adds transparency about aggregation (no per-wallet data), the mainnet/devnet distinction, and the explicit 'no promise' caveat, which is valuable beyond 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose expect, then details the metric definition, cluster behavior, and data scope. Dense but well-structured; could be trimmed slightly but each sentence adds meaning.

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?

Covers purpose, return metrics (gate_met, counts, transaction definition), cluster semantics, data aggregation limits, and the non-committal nature. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 has no descriptions; the description explains the 'cluster' parameter (devnet vs mainnet) but leaves 'caller_id' entirely unexplained. Partial coverage, with the critical parameter addressed.

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?

States a specific resource (ILO adoption gate) with a clear verb ('reads') and immediate distinction from sibling tools by defining the metric and its scope. The description makes the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explains the gate's role, the devnet vs mainnet choice for observability, and explicitly notes it's informational only (‘not a promise…’). It doesn't name alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to call it.

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?