Crank Protocol

journal_query

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read your own decision journal, most recent first (free read).

Wallet-scoped: only decisions journaled for wallet_address are ever returned. Filters: window_hours (0 = all), decision_type, strategy_type, asset (mint/symbol as journaled), outcome_sign (positive|negative|zero on realised P&L), source (agent|system|human -- pass source="human" to see only a manual override on this shared account: human and agents act on ONE account, and every human action is journaled so agents can see and reconcile with it). Every returned row carries its source. detail=concise returns id/type/timestamp/pnl rows (token-budget friendly); detail=full adds bodies, evidence refs, and full outcome marks.

Workflow: ORIENT step -- recall what you decided (and what a human may have overridden) before deciding again.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`asset`	No
`limit`	No
`detail`	No	concise
`source`	No
`caller_id`	No
`outcome_sign`	No
`window_hours`	No
`decision_type`	No
`strategy_type`	No
`wallet_address`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare safe read-only behavior. Description adds wallet-scoping, source tracking, detail levels, and workflow hint. No contradiction.

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?

Compact yet comprehensive. Front-loaded purpose, followed by scoping and filter details, ending with workflow context. No fluff.

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 output schema presence and comprehensive description, tool is fully specified for agent selection. Covers purpose, filters, detail options, and usage workflow.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, but description explains all key parameters (window_hours, decision_type, strategy_type, asset, outcome_sign, source, detail) with behavior and interrelationships.

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?

Clearly states 'Read your own decision journal, most recent first' with specific verb (Read), resource (decision journal), and ordering. Distinguishes from journal_append (write) and other read tools via wallet-scope.

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?

Explicit workflow context: 'Workflow: ORIENT step -- recall what you decided...before deciding again.' Provides filters but no explicit when-not-to-use.

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?