Skip to main content
Glama

SAP MCP Server

by ai.oobeprotocol.sap.mcp

Meteora Create D L M M Pool

meteora_createDLMMPool

Create a Meteora DLMM (Discrete Liquidity Market Maker) pool. 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
mintXYesToken X mint
mintYYesToken Y mint
feeBpsNoFee Bps parameter for Meteora Create D L M M Pool.
amountXNoRaw token amount (smallest unit)
amountYNoRaw token amount (smallest unit)
binStepYesBin step size (defines fee tier and price granularity)
creatorYesSolana public key (base58)
initialPriceYesInitial Price parameter for Meteora Create D L M M Pool.
activationTypeNoActivation Type parameter for Meteora Create D L M M Pool.
activationPointNoActivation Point parameter for Meteora Create D L M M Pool.
priceRoundingUpNoPrice Rounding Up parameter for Meteora Create D L M M Pool.

Output Schema

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

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description adds behavioral context about costing (paid read-premium) and routing restrictions (hosted accountless write blocked), which supplements the annotations. However, it does not describe side effects like on-chain state changes or required permissions, given the tool writes to the blockchain.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is not concise; it repeats the same SAP MCP context verbatim in both the description and input schema, wasting space. The first sentence is concise, but the rest is redundant boilerplate.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of 11 parameters (5 required), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a DLMM pool is, how parameters like binStep or initialPrice interact, or what the output schema contains. The SAP context does not aid in understanding the core functionality.

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% with descriptions for all 11 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it only repeats 'Use exact field names from this schema; do not guess aliases or include private key material,' which is procedural rather than semantic.

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 begins with 'Create a Meteora DLMM (Discrete Liquidity Market Maker) pool,' which clearly specifies the action (create) and resource (DLMM pool). Among sibling tools like meteora_addDLMMLiquidity and meteora_createDynamicPool, this tool is distinct and its purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like meteora_createDynamicPool or other pool creation tools. The SAP MCP context provided is about infrastructure and pricing, not about tool selection criteria.

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