Crank Protocol

get_signals

Read-onlyIdempotent

Filtered, most-recent-first feed of structured market signals (free read).

The observed-signal data spine: squeeze / flow / technical / microstructure / behavioral / liquidity / safety / whale / regime / macro / oracle / event / composite signals persisted by the collectors. subject matches a token symbol/market or its stable ref (mint / market address); signal_type / tier (a|b|c) / risk_level (none..critical) / min_score narrow the feed. Unknown filter values are dropped, not errored. Descriptive observed data only -- never a trade instruction. Not financial advice.

Workflow: INTELLIGENCE step -- pair with get_market_briefing (macro) and get_token_risk_assessment (per-token safety roll-up) before sizing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tier`	No
`limit`	No
`subject`	No
`caller_id`	No
`min_score`	No
`risk_level`	No
`signal_type`	No
`include_expired`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature. The description adds value by stating 'Unknown filter values are dropped, not errored' and 'Descriptive observed data only -- never a trade instruction'. 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 the main purpose, then details, then workflow. It is not overly verbose, but the middle section listing signal types could be slightly more concise.

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?

Given the complexity (8 params, numerous siblings, output schema exists), the description covers the tool's purpose, filtering behavior, and workflow context adequately. It could explain more parameters and handling of include_expired, but overall it is complete enough for effective use.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains subject, signal_type, tier, risk_level, and min_score, but omits limit, caller_id, include_expired. It adds enum-like details for tier and risk_level that are not in the schema, partially filling the gap.

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 it is a 'Filtered, most-recent-first feed of structured market signals (free read)' and enumerates the signal types, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does. It differentiates from sibling signals tools by listing its comprehensive signal spine.

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 a workflow recommendation: 'pair with get_market_briefing and get_token_risk_assessment before sizing', indicating when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives among the many signal-related 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?