Crank Protocol

unpublish_journal_card

Read-onlyIdempotent

Withdraw a published journal card (free write).

Publishing a decision with share_journal_card is an explicit act by the owner; this is the equally explicit act of taking it back. After this call, the public card at its card_url and the OG-image asset both 404 immediately -- the row is private again, exactly as it was before the first publish.

Wallet-scoped like every other Layer 1 tool: you can only unpublish a decision your own wallet owns. Calling this on a decision that is already private (or was never published) is a safe no-op, not an error -- unpublished in the response tells you whether a withdrawal actually happened.

The cached OG image, if one was generated, is left on disk (not deleted) -- the public routes gate on publication state, not file presence, so the takedown is immediate either way, and a later re-publish of the same decision reuses the image instead of paying to regenerate it.

Workflow: the symmetric undo of share_journal_card.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`caller_id`	No
`decision_id`	Yes
`wallet_address`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, but the description clearly describes a mutating operation: it 'withdraws' a publication, makes the card 404, and makes the row 'private again.' This is a direct contradiction with the readOnly annotation, so the score must be 1 regardless of how much other behavioral detail is provided.

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 core action is front-loaded, and the remaining paragraphs each add useful non-obvious behavior: 404 behavior, no-op result, cached-image handling, and workflow pairing. There is some redundancy and rhetorical padding, but the structure is serviceable.

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?

With an output schema present, the description covers essentially everything an agent needs: immediate takedown behavior, privacy restoration, safe no-op semantics, response indication, ownership scope, and the relationship to share_journal_card. This is unusually complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies wallet_address semantics via 'wallet-scoped' and decision_id semantics via 'a decision that is already private,' but it never mentions caller_id or any parameter formats. Compensation is partial, not complete.

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 an explicit verb and resource: 'Withdraw a published journal card (free write).' It immediately distinguishes this from its counterpart by calling it 'the symmetric undo of share_journal_card' and clarifies the scope to cards the caller's wallet owns.

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 names the counterpart tool share_journal_card, states the ownership precondition explicitly, and explains when no-op behavior applies. It gives clear guidance on when this tool is appropriate versus pointless to call.

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?