Crank Protocol

set_portfolio_charter

Write a new version of the wallet's portfolio charter (free control-plane write).

Creates a new active version -- the prior version stays in history, never deleted (versioned mandate, not an in-place overwrite). risk_band is one of conservative|balanced|aggressive. banned_tokens merge into AgentWallet.evaluate_trade as an ADDITIONAL deny source alongside WalletPolicy.banned_tokens -- an active WalletPolicy always wins when it is the stricter rule; a charter can never loosen an existing policy, and a conflict comes back in the response's warnings (logged server-side, never silently dropped). target_allocations is {token: percent}, must sum to <=100. objectives/cadence are free-form parameters -- never phrase them as return promises (hard rules 5-8).

Workflow: ORIENT step 0 -- set once at the start of a relationship with an agent/wallet; strategies read it on every execute_strategy tick (see get_trading_workflow).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cadence`	No
`caller_id`	No
`risk_band`	No
`objectives`	No
`banned_tokens`	No
`body_markdown`	No
`wallet_address`	Yes
`max_position_pct`	No
`escalation_webhook`	No
`target_allocations`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Provides extensive behavioral details: creates new active version, prior version stays, never deleted; explains banned_tokens merge logic, conflict resolution with WalletPolicy, and warnings. Also notes objectives/cadence are free-form with no return promises. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are consistent and description adds much more 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?

Description is long but well-structured with paragraphs. Front-loads main purpose. Every sentence adds value, though could be slightly more concise.

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?

Covers versioning, policy interaction, workflow, and warnings. Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Missing details on a few parameters but overall complete for a write operation.

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?

Though schema description coverage is 0%, the description explains meaning of risk_band, banned_tokens, target_allocations, objectives, and cadence. However, parameters like caller_id, body_markdown, max_position_pct, escalation_webhook are not covered. Overall, adds significant semantic value.

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?

Description starts with 'Write a new version of the wallet's portfolio charter', clearly stating its purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_portfolio_charter by being a write operation, and positions it within the ORIENT workflow.

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?

States 'Workflow: ORIENT step 0 -- set once at the start of a relationship with an agent/wallet', providing explicit when to use. Describes how strategies read it, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools.

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?