Crank Protocol

get_my_contribution_score

Read-onlyIdempotent

Your own hive contribution score for a monthly epoch (free read).

Wallet-scoped -- returns ONLY your wallet's own row, never another wallet's score and never a fleet ranking. epoch is "YYYY-MM" and defaults to the most recently completed month.

Contribution quality reflects how much your journaled decisions genuinely improved the Hive: accurate, verifiable, original contributions score well; copies and noise do not. flags explains a zero score, e.g. below the activation threshold or no on-chain-verified outcome.

Any recognition of contribution quality from the Community Rewards Pool is discretionary, retroactive and effort-gated -- never a yield, a return, an earn-rate, or a promise of a future allocation.

Workflow: REVIEW step -- read alongside get_my_performance to see how your journalling habits, not just your P&L, land with the network.

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": {
      "wallet_address": "<wallet_address>"
    },
    "name": "get_my_contribution_score"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`epoch`	No
`caller_id`	No
`wallet_address`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedAug 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, and the description adds real behavior: wallet scoping, that flags explain a zero score (activation threshold, no verified outcome), and that any reward is discretionary and not a yield. This is meaningful context beyond the structured hints, though it doesn't describe failure modes such as an unknown wallet.

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 purpose and scope before the caveats, and each block serves a purpose (scope, semantics, flags, disclaimer, workflow). The discretionary-rewards disclaimer is repeated in spirit and runs long, costing some tightness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, and the description still explains the flags field and default-epoch behavior. For a three-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, with caller_id the only unexplained element.

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 the description must carry parameter meaning. It does define epoch's 'YYYY-MM' format and default, but caller_id and wallet_address get no explanation beyond the obvious. Partial compensation is worth a middle score.

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 verb+resource ('Your own hive contribution score for a monthly epoch') and immediately bounds the scope: wallet-scoped, only your own row, never a fleet ranking. That explicitly separates it from siblings like get_score, get_score_leaderboard, and get_crank_score.

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?

Gives a concrete workflow cue ('REVIEW step -- read alongside get_my_performance') and defines the default epoch. It does not explicitly exclude sibling score tools (e.g. when to prefer get_score over this), so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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?