Crank Protocol

strategy_modify

Destructive

Edit a running strategy's parameters IN PLACE -- no cancel + recreate.

React to a fresh signal by retuning the strategy you already own: the execution history, cost-basis ledger and position state all survive, and there is no window where the strategy is gone. The live executor picks the new config up on its NEXT tick; a tick already in flight finishes against the config it loaded (it writes only runtime state, never config, so the two can never clobber each other).

Scoped to the caller's own wallet (hard rule 1 -- non-custodial: this edits a row the owner already controls; nothing here holds keys, signs or moves funds).

Args (all optional -- supply at least one): config_updates: strategy-config keys to set, merged over the existing config (e.g. {"usd_per_buy": 25, "stop_loss_pct": 0.08}). remove_keys: config keys to drop back to the executor's default. risk: retune the risk limits -- max_position_pct / max_portfolio_exposure_pct / max_single_loss_pct / max_drawdown_pct / max_daily_loss_pct (percent; <=0 disables a single guard). direction_mode / allow_short / regime_override: the direction controls from the create tools (deterministic signals -- DYOR). target_allocation: new mint->weight basket (rebalance / vault / yield_farm). interval_seconds: new tick interval, used from the next tick on. reason: free text recorded on the strategy's audit log.

REFUSED (returns immutable_config_key): target_token / source_token / tracked_wallet / venue / composite definition. These define WHAT the strategy trades -- editing them in place would desync the executor's position bookkeeping or strand an open perp leg on the venue it was opened against. Cancel and create a new strategy for those. A STOPPED strategy is final and cannot be modified; a paused one can (the edit does not resume it -- use strategy_resume).

The merged config is dry-run through the strategy's executor before it is persisted, so an invalid edit is rejected (invalid_config) rather than latching the live strategy into error on its next tick.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`risk`	No
`reason`	No
`allow_short`	No
`remove_keys`	No
`strategy_id`	Yes
`config_updates`	No
`direction_mode`	No
`wallet_address`	Yes
`regime_override`	No
`interval_seconds`	No
`target_allocation`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate destructive=true and readOnly=false, but the description adds crucial behavioral context beyond annotations: state survives, executor picks config on next tick, in-flight ticks finish with old config, scoped to caller's wallet, and dry-run validation prevents invalid_config latching. No contradiction 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 long but well-structured with purpose, args, refused keys, and edge cases. It front-loads the value proposition and uses clear sections. Slightly verbose, but every sentence earns its place given the tool's complexity.

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?

Covers all operational constraints: immutable keys that must be refused, STOPPED vs paused behavior, dry-run rejection, tick semantics, and audit logging. Since an output schema exists, return values need no explanation. The description is fully sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden. It explains every parameter with semantics and examples: config_updates merges over existing config, remove_keys drops to default, risk limits have special behavior (<=0 disables), target_allocation applies to basket types, interval_seconds takes effect next tick. This far exceeds the bare schema.

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 opens with a precise verb-resource statement: 'Edit a running strategy's parameters IN PLACE -- no cancel + recreate.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from create tools and from strategy_cancel/recreate by emphasizing in-place modification that preserves execution history and position state.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: to retune a strategy on a fresh signal while keeping state. It names alternatives: 'Cancel and create a new strategy' for immutable keys, and 'use strategy_resume' for paused strategies. It also says a STOPPED strategy is final and cannot be modified, providing clear exclusion criteria.

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?