Crank Protocol

pledge_to_ilo

Destructive

Pledge to a token launch. PLAN MODE BY DEFAULT (non-custodial).

amount is in pledge-mint BASE UNITS (USDC is 6dp: 1_000_000 = 1 USDC).

Default (confirm=false) returns action: "plan" -- a preview that evaluates every on-chain guard off-chain first (launch status, pledge window, remaining capacity, per-wallet cap) plus the anti-sybil screen and a pro-rata allocation projection. Nothing is built and nothing moves.

confirm=true returns action: "sign_required" with an UNSIGNED base64 transaction you sign with your own wallet and broadcast yourself. Crank never holds your keys. A pledge is irreversible once broadcast: the on-chain refund path opens only if the raise fails its minimum.

Utility token fair launch -- this commits funds to a non-custodial escrow. It is not a purchase of any expectation of profit and confers no claim on issuer revenue. The technology service fee applies past the daily free tier (x402 payment_header; set pay_in_crank for the $CRANK discount).

idempotency_key (optional): a client-generated UUID. Retrying with the same key + same args replays the original result instead of pledging twice.

US persons are blocked (Reg S-flavoured geo-posture, I4): declare jurisdiction (ISO-3166-1 alpha-2) or rely on a stored attestation; unknown jurisdiction is DENIED. confirm=true additionally requires disclosures_acknowledged=true -- read the mandatory pre-pledge disclosure block (get_ilo_details or a plan-mode preview) first (I2).

Workflow: EXECUTE step -- get_ilo_details, then plan-mode preview, then confirm=true. Track it afterwards with get_my_pledge_status.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ip`	No
`amount`	Yes
`confirm`	No
`caller_id`	No
`launch_id`	Yes
`jurisdiction`	No
`pay_in_crank`	No
`payment_header`	No
`wallet_address`	Yes
`idempotency_key`	No
`pledger_token_account`	No
`disclosures_acknowledged`	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?

The description thoroughly discloses behavior beyond annotations: confirm=false returns a plan with 'Nothing is built and nothing moves,' while confirm=true returns an unsigned base64 transaction the user broadcasts. It also explains irreversibility, refund conditions, non-custodial custody, fees, geo-blocking, and idempotency. There is no contradiction with the 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 long but well-structured with paragraph breaks and inline code terms, making it scannable. Core behavior is front-loaded, followed by units, then safety/legal constraints, then workflow. Some legal and fee language lengthens it, but it is relevant for a committing financial transaction.

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 covers prerequisites, workflow, side effects, irreversibility, fees, jurisdictional restrictions, idempotency semantics, and where to get supporting information. Since an output schema is present, the description does not need to explain return values. Nothing critical for invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it compensates for the most subtle parameters: amount units, confirm behavior, idempotency_key, jurisdiction, disclosures_acknowledged, payment_header, and pay_in_crank. Required fields like launch_id and wallet_address are not explicitly explained, and pledger_token_account is omitted, but their roles are largely inferable from the surrounding context.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Pledge to a token launch.' It then clearly distinguishes the two modes of action, plan-mode preview versus confirm-mode signing, so an agent understands exactly what the tool does. It also names related tools in the workflow, which differentiates this from read/status siblings like get_ilo_details and get_my_pledge_status.

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 gives an explicit workflow: get_ilo_details, then plan-mode preview, then confirm=true, then track with get_my_pledge_status. It also states the mandatory prerequisite of disclosures_acknowledged for confirmation. It does not explicitly contrast against all possible sibling alternatives, but the ordering and prerequisites provide strong practical 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?