SAP MCP Server

Initialize SAP Stake

sap_init_stake

Initialize stake for an agent wallet. SAP MCP context: SAP protocol staking flow. Confirm agent wallet, amount, and unstake timing before writes; this is distinct from external AgentKit staking protocol tools.

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	Default
`agentWallet`	No	Agent wallet public key (base58) to initialize stake for
`initialDeposit`	No	Initial stake deposit amount in lamports (as a decimal string)

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: +"Initialize SAP Stake 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

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate a write operation with no destructive or idempotent properties. The description adds behavioral context by cautioning to confirm agent wallet, amount, and unstake timing before writes, and noting that hosted accountless writes are blocked. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 description has a clear opening sentence but includes a lengthy execution guidance block that repeats similar information and could be condensed. It is not poorly structured but could be more concise without losing essential guidance.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Considering the tool has 2 parameters and a structured output schema (not provided), the description covers the basic purpose and some execution details. However, it lacks information about the effect of initialization (e.g., whether the stake is immediately active) and could better situate the tool among sibling staking tools.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters with clear descriptions (base58 public key and lamports as decimal string). The description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameters beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3.

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 clearly states 'Initialize stake for an agent wallet', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from external AgentKit staking tools but does not differentiate from other SAP staking tools like sap_deposit_stake. The execution guidance adds noise but does not obscure the purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description mentions that this tool is distinct from external AgentKit staking tools, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other SAP staking tools (e.g., sap_deposit_stake). The execution guidance about pricing and routing is helpful but not directly about usage 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.