Skip to main content
Glama

Build SAP Escrow V2 Close Transaction

sap_escrow_build_close_transaction
Destructive

Hosted-safe unsigned builder for close_escrow_v2. The depositor signs locally; the builder refuses to close until balance and pendingAmount are both zero. SAP MCP context: Hosted-safe unsigned Escrow V2 builder. The output is not submitted and is not signed by hosted SAP MCP. Preview it, then call local sap_payments_finalize_transaction with submit:true and confirm:true. Never create temporary signing scripts or read keypair JSON.

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: hosted-safe builder. If a transaction is returned, preview/sign/submit with sap_payments_finalize_transaction; never create temporary signing scripts. Signer boundary: user-controlled local profile or external signer; OOBE hosted MCP remains non-custodial.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nonceNoOptional escrow nonce as a decimal string. Defaults to 0.
agentWalletNoAgent owner wallet public key (base58).
depositorWalletNoDepositor wallet public key (base58). The depositor signs locally to close the empty escrow.

Output Schema

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

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses key traits beyond annotations: 'the builder refuses to close until balance and pendingAmount are both zero', 'The output is not submitted and is not signed by hosted SAP MCP'. No contradictions with annotations (destructiveHint=true is appropriate for a builder of state-changing transactions).

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?

Description is two paragraphs, front-loaded with purpose and conditions. Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose with repetition of 'SAP MCP execution guidance' block. Still highly concise for the amount of information.

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?

Complete for a builder tool: explains prerequisite (balance condition), safety (unsigned, not signed by MCP), and follow-up steps. Output schema present but not needed to describe return values. No gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with good descriptions. Description adds context: 'depositorWallet' signs locally, 'agentWallet' is agent owner. This extra meaning justifies above baseline 3.

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 'Hosted-safe unsigned builder for close_escrow_v2' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like sap_close_escrow_v2 (which likely submits the transaction).

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit guidelines: 'Preview it, then call local sap_payments_finalize_transaction with submit:true and confirm:true. Never create temporary signing scripts or read keypair JSON.' and 'estimate first, then pay/build and finalize'. Clearly states when to use and when not.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

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.