Crank Protocol

get_integrator_stats

Read-onlyIdempotent

Integrator dashboard: status, share, onboarded count, $CRANK reward state.

Read-only. Rewards are $CRANK only: reward_asset, pre_mint and $CRANK buckets (accrued/pending/claimable/paid, each count/priced_count/ amount_base_units). No USD reward figure, never PnL -- a fee-share, never a performance-share.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "integrator_wallet_address": "<integrator_wallet_address>"
    },
    "name": "get_integrator_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`caller_id`	No
`integrator_wallet_address`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedJul 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent profile, but the description adds valuable context not in structured data: rewards are $CRANK-only, there is deliberately no USD figure, and it is a fee-share not a performance-share. This clarifies what the numbers do and do not represent.

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-loads the dashboard contents in one line, then uses a dense second paragraph for the reward caveats. Every sentence earns its place, though the bucket field-name listing is slightly over-specified.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be spelled out, yet the description helpfully characterizes the reward structure and explicitly rules out USD/PnL interpretations. The main gap is that input parameters are left entirely unexplained.

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 description coverage is 0% for two parameters, so the description carries the full burden of explaining them. It never mentions integrator_wallet_address or caller_id, adding no meaning beyond the parameter names themselves.

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?

States a specific resource and enumerates its contents (status, share, onboarded count, $CRANK reward state), so an agent knows exactly what this returns. However, it does not distinguish itself from the very close sibling get_integrator_earnings, leaving overlap ambiguity.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The only usage framing is 'Read-only,' which is behavioral rather than situational. There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternative get_integrator_earnings, so the agent must infer which integrator-related tool to pick.

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

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?