Crank Protocol

strategy_composite_create

Destructive

Create a composite strategy from a validated definition.

Same non-custodial create path as the other 16 strategy types: the wallet holds its own keys; a wallet without a Turnkey signer receives an unsigned transaction per tick for the owner to sign. mode defaults to LIVE (recorded on the config; a paper mode annotation is informational until the managed-signing epic lands). Recommended: run compose_strategy + backtest_strategy on the definition FIRST -- historical results are not predictive; DYOR.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`mode`	No	live
`risk`	No
`definition`	Yes
`wallet_address`	Yes
`interval_seconds`	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?

Discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: the non-custodial path, wallet key custody, unsigned transaction per tick for wallets without a Turnkey signer, and the live/paper mode nuance. This adds significant context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: true) and includes a DYOR warning.

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 a compact paragraph with a clear front-loaded purpose, followed by necessary behavioral and usage context. Each sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly more streamlined by separating the DYOR warning into a distinct note.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, output schema) and strong annotations, the description covers the core purpose, recommended workflow, and critical mode behavior. It does not fully explain risk or interval_seconds, but the output schema and sibling tools help fill structural gaps.

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

Parameters3/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains mode (defaults to LIVE, paper mode is informational) and definition (validated definition), and indirectly wallet_address. However, it does not add meaning for risk or interval_seconds, leaving gaps for two optional parameters.

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 opening sentence 'Create a composite strategy from a validated definition' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this tool from other strategy creation tools (e.g., strategy_momentum_create) by focusing on composite strategies. The reference to 'other 16 strategy types' further contextualizes its place within the family.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly recommends running compose_strategy and backtest_strategy on the definition first, giving clear when-to-use guidance. Also explains mode defaulting behavior and the caveat about paper mode, helping agents decide when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.

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?