Crank Protocol

set_agnta_grant

Idempotent

Opt a wallet into an AGNTA DelegationGrant spend/scope cap (non-custodial control plane).

Validates grant_pda decodes as a base58 32-byte address, the on-chain account exists and decodes as a DelegationGrant, it is not revoked and not expired, and its delegate matches wallet_address -- every failure raises INVALID_PARAMS with a distinct message. Adds an ADDITIONAL cap enforced alongside (never replacing) WalletPolicy on every subsequent value-bearing call for this wallet -- always TIGHTENS enforcement, so it applies directly for every wallet, Lane 2 included.

Permission mode: a configuration write -- allowed in every permission_mode, observe included; the ladder gates value-bearing actions, not config.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "wallet_address": "<wallet_address>",
      "grant_pda": "<grant_pda>"
    },
    "name": "set_agnta_grant"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedAug 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true; the description goes well beyond by disclosing validation rules (base58 32-byte decode, on-chain existence, DelegationGrant decode, not revoked/expired, delegate match), the distinct INVALID_PARAMS failure behavior, and the additive/tightening semantics. This is rich, non-contradictory 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the core action, then layered validation and semantics. Dense but each clause carries information; minor parenthetical asides add slight length without harm.

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

Completeness4/5

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

A mutation tool with annotations and an output schema (so return values need not be explained). The description covers validation, enforcement semantics, and permission-mode behavior completely. Only the undocumented caller_id parameter leaves a small gap.

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 must compensate. It thoroughly explains grant_pda (format, decode, lifecycle checks) and its relationship to wallet_address (delegate match), covering the two required params well. caller_id is left undocumented, so it does not fully close the gap.

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?

States a specific verb ('Opt a wallet into') and resource ('AGNTA DelegationGrant spend/scope cap'), with a clarifying scope ('non-custodial control plane'). An agent can distinguish this from clear_agnta_grant and set_wallet_policy by the explicit 'adds an ADDITIONAL cap enforced alongside (never replacing) WalletPolicy'.

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?

Gives clear context for when it applies ('every subsequent value-bearing call for this wallet', 'applies directly for every wallet, Lane 2 included') and its permission-mode gating ('allowed in every permission_mode, observe included'). It stops short of naming sibling alternatives like clear_agnta_grant or set_wallet_policy as explicit choices, so no exclusions/routing.

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

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?