Crank Protocol

register_webhook

Idempotent

event_types is a non-empty subset of: pre_trade (advisory only, never blocks a trade), post_trade, policy_violation, drawdown_warning, strategy_executed. url is your https(s) receiving endpoint. secret is YOUR OWN HMAC-SHA256 signing secret (8-128 chars) -- Crank never sends or stores platform key material here (hard rule 1); you use it to verify the X-Crank-Signature header on every delivered event (see docs/WEBHOOKS.md). Re-registering the same (wallet_address, url) pair updates its event_types/secret and reactivates it if it was auto-disabled after repeated delivery failures.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes
`secret`	Yes
`caller_id`	No
`event_types`	Yes
`wallet_address`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate idempotent, non-destructive write. Description adds context: 'free control-plane write', re-registration updates/reactivates, auto-disable after delivery failures, and a security rule about secret handling. No contradictions 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 concise and front-loaded with purpose. It packs essential details without verbosity. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but remains clear and efficient.

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, not explaining return values is acceptable. The description covers all parameters, behavioral nuances, security notes, and re-registration logic. It is complete for a registration tool with this complexity.

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 the description compensates fully. It details event_types (lists allowed values with explanation), url (requires https), and secret (HMAC-SHA256, length 8-128, not stored by platform). It also explains the behavior for the wallet_address+url pair.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Register (or reactivate) a lifecycle-event webhook for a wallet'. It specifies the resource (webhook) and action (register/reactivate), and distinguishes itself from siblings like list_webhooks and delete_webhook.

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 provides specific guidance on event_types, url, and secret requirements, including constraints like 'non-empty subset' and 'https(s)'. It explains re-registration behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare with other webhook tools beyond mentioning reactivation.

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?