Crank Protocol

get_indicators

Read-onlyIdempotent

Full standard technical-indicator set for one asset/timeframe (read-only).

Computes sma, ema, macd, adx (+DI/-DI), rsi, stochastic (%K/%D), roc, bollinger (mid/upper/lower/width/%B), atr, keltner, realised_vol, vwap, volume_ratio and volume_profile (POC / value area / high-volume-node liquidity bands with 0-1 depth scores) from recent OHLCV via the canonical backend/indicators library. asset is a token mint; timeframe one of 1m/5m/15m/1h/4h/1d; indicators selects a subset (empty = all); lookback candles capped at 500; params overrides per indicator, e.g. {"rsi": {"period": 21}}; include_series=true adds per-bar series (last 200 points). Readings are None while history is warming up. Computed readings only -- not financial advice, not a trade instruction (DYOR). No wallet, no fee, no on-chain action.

Workflow: INTELLIGENCE step -- raw indicator readings underlying detect_regime; pair with get_ml_signal (forecast) + get_signals (persisted cross-source signals). See get_trading_workflow.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`asset`	Yes
`params`	No
`lookback`	No
`caller_id`	No
`timeframe`	No	1h
`indicators`	No
`include_series`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it computes readings only, involves no wallet/fee/on-chain action, and that readings are None while history is warming up. This goes beyond annotations and clarifies behavioral traits.

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 lengthy but well-structured with a clear opening, bullet-like listing of indicators, parameter explanations, and workflow context. Every sentence adds value; it is efficient for its complexity.

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 the tool's complexity (multiple indicators, parameters, output schema exists), the description covers input semantics, behavior during warm-up, workflow integration, and disclaimers. No gaps remain for an informed selection and invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: asset is a token mint, timeframe with allowed values, indicators as a subset array, params as a JSON override, lookback capped at 500, include_series for per-bar data. It also describes the output indicator structure with examples.

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 the tool computes the full standard technical-indicator set for one asset/timeframe, specifying it is read-only. It lists the indicators (sma, ema, etc.) and differentiates from sibling tools by labeling it as an INTELLIGENCE step and suggesting pairing with get_ml_signal, get_signals, etc.

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?

The description provides explicit context: it's for raw indicator readings as part of a workflow, not financial advice, and readings are None during warm-up. It mentions pairing with detect_regime, get_ml_signal, get_signals, and refers to get_trading_workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives beyond these siblings.

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?