Crank Protocol

get_trading_workflow

Read-onlyIdempotent

Map of how Crank's tools fit into one end-to-end trading flow (read this first).

Read-only, free. Returns an ordered, machine-readable workflow: orient -> intelligence -> yields -> simulate (backtest) -> risk-size -> execute (non-custodial) -> monitor -> journal. Each step names the concrete tool(s) to call, their purpose, key inputs, how to use the output downstream, and the decision points that branch the flow -- so an agent that discovered Crank via tools/list can sequence the full tool surface instead of guessing. Descriptive only (DYOR); only execute-phase tools are value-bearing.

wallet_address (optional, PUBLIC key only -- non-custodial): when given, appends human_activity -- count + most-recent manual override on this shared account in the last 72h (decision_type, asset, rationale summary, timestamp) plus an instruction to reconcile with it before acting. Human and agents act on ONE account: every human action is journaled (see journal_query source="human") so it is never invisible to you. Absent/clean ({"count": 0}) when there is no override.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations by disclosing that it is free, non-custodial, returns an ordered machine-readable workflow, appends human_activity when wallet_address is provided, and that human actions are journaled and must be reconciled. This is rich behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is long but every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with 'read this first,' then efficiently conveys the workflow phases, tool mapping, output usage, decision points, and wallet-specific behavior without redundancy.

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?

The description fully covers the workflow sequence, tool names, purposes, decision points, downstream output usage, and wallet override handling. Combined with the output schema and rich annotations, this is comprehensive for an orientation tool. Only the minor caller_id omission keeps this from being perfect, but overall completeness is high.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description thoroughly explains wallet_address (optional, public key only, appends human_activity with count, decision_type, asset, rationale, timestamp, and absent/clean behavior). However, caller_id is not mentioned at all, and with 0% schema coverage this is a minor gap in parameter documentation.

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 this is a map of Crank's end-to-end trading workflow, names the ordered phases, and instructs the agent to 'read this first.' It distinguishes itself from all execution-focused sibling tools by being an orientation/meta tool.

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?

It explicitly says when to use: after discovering Crank via tools/list, before sequencing the full tool surface. It also clarifies when not to rely on it for value ('Descriptive only (DYOR); only execute-phase tools are value-bearing'), providing clear usage boundaries.

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?