Skip to main content
Glama

SAP MCP Server

by ai.oobeprotocol.sap.mcp

Manifest Place Limit Order

manifest_placeLimitOrder

Place a limit order on a Manifest market. SAP MCP context: This Synapse AgentKit tool is served beside the sap_* SDK tools. Use sap_agent_identity_plan, sap_payments_register_agent, sap_payments_update_agent, and sap_publish_tool_by_name when the capability should become part of an on-chain SAP agent profile or tool registry entry.

SAP MCP execution guidance: Intent: SAP MCP tool workflow. Pricing: paid read-premium; estimate first, then use sap_payments_call_paid_tool when the runtime cannot replay x402 natively. Routing: hosted accountless write is blocked; do not call this as a paid hosted write and no x402 payment should be charged. Use the local sap_payments bridge or a hosted unsigned builder when user signing is required. Signer boundary: user-controlled local profile or external signer; OOBE hosted MCP remains non-custodial.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sideYesSide parameter for Manifest Place Limit Order.
sizeYesOrder size in base tokens
priceYesLimit price
walletYesSolana public key (base58)
marketIdYesSolana public key (base58)
orderTypeNoOrder Type parameter for Manifest Place Limit Order.

Output Schema

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

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it states that the tool is a paid write (read-premium), that hosted write is blocked, and outlines signer requirements. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is verbose with SAP MCP boilerplate that may not be essential for all agents. The first sentence is clear, but subsequent paragraphs contain detailed execution guidance that could be condensed. Not optimally front-loaded.

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?

Given the output schema exists (not shown but noted), the description covers pricing, routing, and authentication context sufficiently. It does not detail return values or order lifecycle, but the output schema likely handles that. Overall, it is fairly complete for a limit order tool in this ecosystem.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning for parameters, relying on the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with 'Place a limit order on a Manifest market,' which clearly states the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like manifest_cancelOrder or jupiter_createLimitOrder, leaving some ambiguity in a crowded toolset.

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 provides extensive, explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus others, including SAP MCP workflow context, pricing model, routing restrictions, signer boundary, and references to alternative tools for on-chain registration. This is highly informative for correct selection.

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