Skip to main content
Glama

SAP MCP Server

by ai.oobeprotocol.sap.mcp

sap adrena build open short

sap_adrena_build_open_short

Build an unsigned transaction to open or increase a short perp position on Adrena only after policy, balance, oracle-readiness, and simulation checks pass. Collateral must be USDC for shorts. Returns transactionBase64 only when safeToApprove=true, approvalBlocked=false, and the transaction passed pre-submit simulation. If oracleReadiness.ready=false, simulationError, safeToApprove is not true, or approvalBlocked appears, do not show approval and 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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ownerYesPosition owner wallet public key (base58).
leverageYesLeverage multiplier.
priceUsdNoOptional limit price in USD. Omit for market order.
principalTokenYesAsset to short. Supported: JITOSOL, WBTC, BONK.
collateralTokenYesCollateral token. Must be USDC for shorts.
collateralAmountYesCollateral (USDC) amount in human-readable units.
stopLossPriceUsdNoOptional stop-loss price in USD. When provided, the policy engine treats this trade as having a stop loss. Omit to skip the SL requirement (if policy requires SL, this field must be present).

Output Schema

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

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite having annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral context: this is a paid hosted builder, returns transactionBase64 only when safety checks pass, and requires local finalization when signing is needed. It also clarifies the signer boundary ('never receive keypair bytes'), which is beyond what annotations provide.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is information-dense and well-structured, with the core purpose and safety conditions front-loaded. The SAP execution guidance paragraph is boilerplate-like but relevant to routing and signer boundaries. It is longer than minimal, yet every section serves a functional purpose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity — 7 parameters, conditional output, paid routing, and safety gates — the description covers the essential context: when it is safe to use, what conditions must hold, how to route payment, and what the signer boundary is. An output schema is present, so return-value details are not required here.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds only a redundant note about USDC collateral; it does not meaningfully extend the schema's parameter explanations. 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 states a specific verb ('Build'), a clear resource ('an unsigned transaction to open or increase a short perp position on Adrena'), and a key constraint ('Collateral must be USDC for shorts'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like sap_adrena_build_open_long and sap_adrena_build_close_short.

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?

The description gives explicit preconditions ('only after policy, balance, oracle-readiness, and simulation checks pass') and explicit do-not-proceed conditions ('do not show approval and do not call finalize'). It lacks an explicit comparison to sibling alternatives, but the intended use case is clear enough 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