SAP MCP Server

sap adrena build modify position

sap_adrena_build_modify_position

Build an unsigned transaction to modify an existing Adrena position by adding collateral. Uses openOrIncreasePosition which atomically adds collateral to an existing position. The leverage parameter can be changed to adjust the position risk. Returns transactionBase64 only after policy, oracle-readiness, balance, and builder-side RPC simulation pass. Show approval only when safeToApprove=true and approvalBlocked=false; otherwise do not call finalize.

SAP MCP execution guidance: Intent: hosted unsigned transaction builder. Pricing: paid builder; estimate first, then pay/build and finalize unsigned transactions locally when returned. Routing: paid hosted call; call sap_estimate_tool_cost first, then use sap_payments_call_paid_tool if the runtime cannot handle x402 natively. Signer boundary: hosted reads/builders never receive keypair bytes; value-moving results must be finalized locally when signing is required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`side`	Yes	Position side.
`owner`	Yes	Position owner wallet public key (base58).
`leverage`	Yes	New leverage multiplier. Pass the same value to keep current leverage, or a different value to change it.
`principalToken`	Yes	Asset of the position.
`collateralToken`	Yes	Collateral token.
`collateralAmount`	Yes	Additional collateral amount in human-readable units to add to the position.

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.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing that the tool returns transactionBase64 only after policy, oracle-readiness, balance, and simulation checks pass, and that finalize must only be called when safeToApprove=true and approvalBlocked=false. It also explains the hosted signer boundary, adding substantial behavioral context.

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 first paragraph is well-structured and front-loaded, but the second paragraph repeats the SAP MCP execution guidance verbatim from the schema description. This duplication adds redundancy without new information, so the description is not as concise as it could be.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a hosted unsigned transaction builder with an output schema, this description is complete: it states the intent, required approval conditions, simulation gates, signer boundary, pricing and routing guidance, and what is returned. An agent has enough information to select, invoke, and process the result correctly.

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 each parameter already described in detail. The description adds only marginal insight, such as leverage changing position risk, but most parameter meaning is supplied by the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool builds an unsigned transaction to modify an existing Adrena position by adding collateral, naming the underlying openOrIncreasePosition mechanism. This distinguishes it from open/close position builders and other collateral-related tools.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use: only for existing positions needing additional collateral, with leverage optionally adjusted. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclude when not to use it, leaving the routing decision partially to inference.

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

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.

sap adrena build modify position

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources