Crank Protocol

submit_agnta_identity_registration

Idempotent

Submit the OWNER-SIGNED register_identity transaction and complete the binding.

Submits the transaction, then VERIFIES on chain before stamping anything: the account at identity_pda must be OWNED by the AGNTA agent-registry program, carry the AgentIdentity discriminator, AND carry this wallet's own authority pubkey. Only then does the wallet move pending -> registered. A signature string is never treated as proof, and an agent can never self-assert its own binding. A duplicate submit is not an error -- the on-chain check decides; when the account is not yet visible the wallet stays pending and the caller polls poll_agnta_identity_registration.

Non-custodial (hard rule 1): signed_transaction_base64 is the owner's PUBLIC signed artefact -- Crank never sees, stores or logs a key or seed.

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>",
      "identity_pda": "<identity_pda>",
      "signed_transaction_base64": "<signed_transaction_base64>"
    },
    "name": "submit_agnta_identity_registration"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`caller_id`	No
`identity_pda`	Yes
`wallet_address`	Yes
`signed_transaction_base64`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedSep 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description thoroughly explains the on-chain verification process, states that a signature string is never proof, and emphasizes the non-custodial nature (hard rule 1) where Crank never sees, stores, or logs keys. This goes far beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) by detailing the verification and security behavior.

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 and dense but well-structured with paragraphs and clear headings. It front-loads the primary purpose and follows with verification and non-custodial details. Some redundancy exists (repeating 'non-custodial'), but overall it is organized and focused.

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?

While the output schema is present and presumably details return values, the description provides comprehensive context for the transaction submission process, including verification steps and handling of duplicates. However, it lacks explicit mention of error cases (other than pending state) and does not detail prerequisites like needing a prior request step, but these are implied.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description provides some context for parameters: signed_transaction_base64 is the owner's public signed artefact, but wallet_address and identity_pda are not explained beyond their names. The description does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, but the key parameter is clarified enough.

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 clearly states the tool submits an owner-signed register_identity transaction and completes the binding, with specific verification steps. It distinguishes from related tools like request_agnta_identity_registration and poll_agnta_identity_registration by focusing on the submission and verification action.

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?

The description explicitly outlines when to use the tool: after obtaining the owner-signed transaction, and when the account is not yet visible, the caller should poll using poll_agnta_identity_registration. It also clarifies that duplicate submits are acceptable, providing clear usage context and directing to an alternative when needed.

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?