Crank Protocol

strategy_sentiment_create

Destructive

Create a sentiment strategy -- trades an aggregate sentiment score.

Buys when the score is >= bull_threshold (flat), sells when it is <= bear_threshold (holding); the neutral band holds. The score is sourced live from market intelligence each tick, or pinned via sentiment_score. DISCRETIONARY (SEC framework): targeting a tokenized SECURITY forces per-execution user_confirmed at execution (crypto stays fully autonomous). Call asset_classification first.

risk / direction params: see strategy_dca_create.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`risk`	No
`allow_short`	No
`usd_per_buy`	Yes
`slippage_bps`	No
`source_token`	No	USDC
`target_token`	Yes
`bear_threshold`	No
`bull_threshold`	No
`direction_mode`	No
`wallet_address`	Yes
`regime_override`	No
`sentiment_score`	No
`interval_seconds`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the core trading behavior, the neutral band, live vs pinned sentiment sources, and the SEC/discretionary requirement for per-execution user confirmation on tokenized securities. This is substantial, decision-relevant 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then trading logic, data source, compliance behavior, prerequisite, and a pointer. Every sentence carries useful information with no filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers selection-critical behavior well, but with 0% schema coverage and 13 parameters, it is not fully self-sufficient for invocation. It leans on a sibling tool for risk/direction semantics and leaves several parameters such as usd_per_buy, slippage_bps, source_token, and interval_seconds unexplained.

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

Parameters2/5

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 explains bull_threshold, bear_threshold, and sentiment_score, and points to strategy_dca_create for risk/direction params, but most of the 13 parameters remain effectively undocumented in this tool's own description.

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 states a specific function: creating a sentiment strategy that trades an aggregate sentiment score. It also explains the buy/sell threshold logic, which differentiates it from other strategy creation tools. The purpose is unmistakable.

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?

It gives a clear prerequisite ('Call asset_classification first') and a useful cross-reference for risk/direction parameters. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative strategy types, so it stops short of a 5.

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?