SAP MCP Server

Raydium-pools Remove Liquidity

raydium-pools_removeLiquidity

Destructive

Remove liquidity from a Raydium 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
`poolId`	Yes	Solana public key (base58)
`wallet`	Yes	Solana public key (base58)
`lpAmount`	No	Raw token amount (smallest unit)
`percentage`	No	Percentage of liquidity to remove
`positionNft`	No	Token mint address (base58)

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: +"Raydium-pools Remove Liquidity 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

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true (write operation). The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., pool impact, slippage, return tokens). The SAP context is irrelevant to the tool's actual behavior.

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

Conciseness1/5

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

The description is bloated with unrelated SAP MCP boilerplate that repeats in the schema description. The first sentence is concise, but the rest is unnecessary, making the overall description inefficient.

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 output schema exists and annotations are provided, the description should explain the tool's practical use (e.g., prerequisites, pool type, LP token handling). It fails to do so, wasting space on generic SAP workflow instructions.

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% so parameters are already documented. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 first sentence clearly states the tool removes liquidity from a Raydium pool, and sibling tools include addLiquidity, so purpose and differentiation are clear. However, the lengthy SAP MCP context distracts from the primary purpose.

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 explicit guidance on when to use removeLiquidity versus alternatives (e.g., addLiquidity, createCLMM). The SAP routing and pricing notes are generic and do not help with tool 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 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.