The most comparison is core.typed, which literally just adds static (gradual) typing to Clojure. That said, I think that's a misleading comparison, and less useful than it is for TypeScript.
If you're willing to relax the definition to "static analyzers that find similar issues to what TypeScript might find", there are a few that require very little input (but are less powerful in finding these types of bugs, more powerful in finding others) like e.g. clj-kondo or spectrum.
One fundamental challenge is that the idea that you should mostly just pass data around, ideally maps, and those maps should be open for extension, is very core to Clojure. You get a lot of benefits from that, but the idea that anyone can add stuff and that's OK also makes it difficult to detect that some accesses are _not_ OK.
(note that Lisp is flexible enough that a type system can be written as a library)
There's also this for run-time checking (i.e., you won't get any help at compile-time, but functions called with bad values will fail in very clear ways): https://github.com/plumatic/schema
Hopeful new lispers beware that core.typed is not so easy to use as TypeScript, and slows things down quite a bit, and you will need to write a lot of type definitions for 3rd party code. Most (all I’ve seen) clojure shops instead rely on runtime type checking with Spec or Schema, both still popular
