SAP MCP Server

Meteora Create Dynamic Pool

meteora_createDynamicPool

Create a Meteora Dynamic AMM 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

Name	Required	Description
`mintA`	Yes	Token mint address (base58)
`mintB`	Yes	Token mint address (base58)
`amountA`	Yes	Raw token amount (smallest unit)
`amountB`	Yes	Raw token amount (smallest unit)
`creator`	Yes	Solana public key (base58)
`activationType`	No	Activation Type parameter for Meteora Create Dynamic Pool.
`activationPoint`	No	Activation slot/timestamp
`tradeFeeNumerator`	No	Trade fee numerator (default pool fee)
`tradeFeeDenominator`	No	Trade Fee Denominator parameter for Meteora Create Dynamic Pool.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`content`	Yes	MCP content blocks returned to the caller.
`isError`	No	True when the tool result represents an application-level error.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedJul 24, 2026

addedInput schema / description

Added value: +"Meteora Create Dynamic Pool input schema. 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. Use exact field names from this schema; do not guess aliases or include private key material."

First observedJul 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about costing ('paid read-premium') and signer requirements, but does not delve into other behavioral traits like token lockup, reversibility, or output details. The added value is moderate.

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 verbose with extensive SAP MCP boilerplate (about 250 words). It is not concise; the core purpose is front-loaded, but the rest is unfocused and repeated in the schema description. Many sentences could be omitted or moved elsewhere.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description lacks explanations of the pool type (Dynamic AMM vs DLMM), usage scenarios, and differentiation from siblings. It does not cover edge cases or provide examples, leaving the tool under-specified for an agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, offering no additional semantics or examples. Baseline 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 states 'Create a Meteora Dynamic AMM pool' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool meteora_createDLMMPool, which also creates a pool. So purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like meteora_createDLMMPool or other pool creation tools. The SAP MCP context is about payment and routing, not tool selection. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.

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 tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.