Crank Protocol

get_strategy_suggestions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Signal-to-action suggestions from the synthesis engine (free read, G4).

Per-asset directional observations aggregated hourly from the accuracy- weighted intelligence consensus (get_consensus math) plus the Fear & Greed context, each carrying a ready-to-use strategy config. PROPOSE flow: this tool never executes anything -- act on a suggestion by creating the strategy through the normal strategy tools (your wallet policy and the engine's risk / conflict / guardrail gates still apply), or approve it in the app. status filters proposed|approved|dismissed|executed|expired|all. Informational descriptions of observed data only. Not financial advice.

Workflow: INTELLIGENCE -> DECIDE step -- review suggestions, then pair with backtest_strategy + get_risk_assessment before any create call.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`asset`	No
`limit`	No
`status`	No	proposed
`caller_id`	No

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 indicate read-only and non-destructive. Description adds workflow context, status filter options, and the explicit statement that it never executes. No contradiction 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 well-structured with a clear summary, workflow, and status details. It is front-loaded with key purpose information. Slightly verbose but each sentence adds value.

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 presence of an output schema, the description covers the necessary context: workflow integration, read-only nature, status filtering, and differentiation from sibling execution tools. It is complete for an intelligence-gathering tool.

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 has 0% coverage. Description only explains the 'status' parameter with its enum values. Other parameters (asset, limit, caller_id) are not described, leaving some ambiguity. However, the tool's main filter (status) is well-documented.

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 returns 'signal-to-action suggestions' as a read operation, and explicitly distinguishes from execution tools by saying 'this tool never executes anything'. It provides a specific verb and resource.

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 prescribes when to use ('INTELLIGENCE -> DECIDE step') and which tools to pair with ('backtest_strategy + get_risk_assessment'). Also states that action requires going through normal strategy tools, providing clear 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

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?