Skip to main content
Glama

SAP MCP Server

by ai.oobeprotocol.sap.mcp

Coingecko Get Token Price

coingecko_getTokenPrice
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get token price and market data from CoinGecko. SAP MCP context: Protocol coingecko; operation class read. Use for off-chain market data such as token prices, trending assets, token info, pools, and OHLCV. Use market data as advisory context. On-chain SAP settlement and escrow state remain authoritative for payments.

SAP MCP execution guidance: Intent: read/discovery workflow. Pricing: free; call directly without x402. Routing: free hosted call; call directly and keep it small/exact when possible. Signer boundary: hosted reads/builders never receive keypair bytes; value-moving results must be finalized locally when signing is required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenIdYesCoinGecko token ID or contract address
vsCurrencyNoVs Currency parameter for Coingecko Get Token Price.
include24hChangeNoInclude24h Change parameter for Coingecko Get Token Price.
include24hVolumeNoInclude24h Volume parameter for Coingecko Get Token Price.
includeMarketCapNoInclude Market Cap parameter for Coingecko Get Token Price.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYesMCP content blocks returned to the caller.
isErrorNoTrue when the tool result represents an application-level error.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds execution guidance (free pricing, direct call, signer boundary) which is valuable but not contradictory. No additional behavioral traits beyond annotations are disclosed.

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?

Description is structured with clear sentences and bullet points. Repetition of execution guidance in the input schema description adds some redundancy, so not maximally concise.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, execution context, and limitations (advisory vs. on-chain). With output schema present, return values are documented. Missing specifics on rate limits or fallback behavior, but generally complete given annotations.

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 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds a warning to use exact field names but does not enhance semantic understanding beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Get token price and market data from CoinGecko' and lists use cases (token prices, trending assets, etc.). However, it overlaps with sibling tools like coingecko_getTokenInfo and coingecko_getOHLCV without explicit differentiation, making it slightly less precise.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use guidance for off-chain market data and notes that on-chain state is authoritative for payments. Includes pricing and routing advice. However, does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or say when not to use this tool in favor of a more specialized one.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All SAP MCP Server toolsInspect
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
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are organized by protocol prefix (e.g., adrena_, jupiter_, sap_) which helps distinguish domains. Within each protocol, tool names clearly indicate actions (e.g., openPosition, getQuote). However, with 360 tools, some cross-protocol overlaps (e.g., multiple swap tools) and many similar fetch tools in the sap_* family require careful reading of descriptions to disambiguate.

Naming Consistency4/5

Each protocol group follows a consistent naming convention (e.g., snake_case for adrena_, camelCase for 3land, sap_ prefix for SAP SDK tools). The mix of conventions across protocols is acceptable, though a uniform style would improve predictability. Minor inconsistency: hyphenated names like metaplex-nft_ vs underscores.

Tool Count2/5

360 tools is far too many for a well-scoped MCP server. This aggregates dozens of protocols and SAP-specific features, making navigation difficult. The server would benefit from being split into focused micro-servers (e.g., SAP identity, Jupiter DEX, NFT tools). The current count overwhelms the coherence of the set.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a vast range of Solana ecosystem activities: token operations, swaps, staking, NFT management, bridging, oracle data, identity registration, chat, escrow, subscriptions, and premium streaming. Major lifecycle operations are present, though some niche subdomains may have missing functions (e.g., detailed governance or lending management). Overall, it's comprehensive for the intended scope.

Resources