Crank Protocol

get_portfolio_charter

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read the wallet's active portfolio charter -- the CRANK.md-equivalent mandate (free read).

A user-authored document declaring objectives, risk_band, banned tokens, target_allocations, max_position_pct, rebalance cadence, and an escalation webhook -- loaded once per session so the mandate persists across every downstream call instead of being re-supplied ad hoc. has_charter is False when the wallet has not set one yet -- call set_portfolio_charter to create it. Descriptive framing only ("objectives"/"parameters", never return targets, hard rules 5-8).

Workflow: ORIENT step 0 -- read this FIRST, before get_balances / portfolio_snapshot, so every downstream decision is framed by it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds value by explaining the 'loaded once per session' persistence, the has_charter False edge case, and the free-read nature. 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with a strong first sentence. It is detailed than a simple getter strictly needs, and the 'CRANK.md-equivalent' and 'hard rules 5–8' jargon adds some noise, but every major section earns its place operationally.

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 invocation order, when the charter doesn't exist, session persistence, and next steps, while the annotations and output schema carry the safety and return-value details. Nothing essential is missing for calling this tool 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description refers only obliquely to the wallet via 'the wallet's active portfolio charter'. It clarifies that wallet_address identifies the wallet, but it does not explain the optional caller_id parameter. Acceptable given the one required, self-descriptive parameter.

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 ('Read') and a clear resource ('the wallet's active portfolio charter'), and defines the charter as a CRANK.md-equivalent mandate. It distinguishes itself from set_portfolio_charter and downstream read calls like get_balances and portfolio_snapshot.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to read this FIRST in the ORIENT step and before get_balances / portfolio_snapshot, which is concrete placement in a workflow. It also names set_portfolio_charter as the creation action when has_charter is False.

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?