Skip to main content
Glama

Crank Protocol

by ing.crank

register_agent

Register/refresh an agent's discovery profile in the Crank registry.

capabilities is a subset of swap|perps|lending|staking|strategies|signals| equity|onramp; supported_protocols e.g. ["mcp","a2a","x402"]. Idempotent on wallet_address (a PUBLIC key -- non-custodial). This is how other agents find you via the A2A Agent Card + Solana Agent Registry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contactNo
versionNo1.0.0
caller_idNo
descriptionNo
a2a_card_urlNo
capabilitiesNo
display_nameNo
mcp_endpointNo
wallet_addressYes
supported_protocolsNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description states 'Idempotent on wallet_address' but the annotation idempotentHint is false, creating a direct contradiction. Additionally, the description provides some context (non-custodial, public key) but this is undermined by the inconsistency.

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 brief (2 sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. It packs relevant details (capabilities list, protocols, idempotency note) without redundancy. Minor improvement possible by structuring with bullet points.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks explanation of the Crank registry, the registration process, or side effects. With 10 parameters, a detailed breakdown is needed for correct invocation. The tool is part of a complex blockchain registry, so missing context reduces usability.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate. Only capabilities and supported_protocols are partially explained (with example values), leaving 8 other parameters (e.g., wallet_address, display_name, description, contact, version, caller_id, a2a_card_url, mcp_endpoint) without any semantic context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool registers/refreshes an agent's discovery profile in the Crank registry and mentions specific fields like capabilities and supported protocols. It distinguishes from creating a wallet (create_agent_wallet) and updating profile (update_agent_profile) by focusing on discovery, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_agent_wallet or update_agent_profile. The description implies usage for registering discovery but does not exclude other contexts or specify prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Crank Protocol toolsInspect
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