SAP MCP Server

Append Trade Journal Entry

sap_trade_journal

Free local tool. Appends a trade entry to the journal. Call after every trade open/close/SL/TP/liquidation for tracking and P&L analysis. No x402 charge.

SAP MCP execution guidance: Intent: Solana value-action or trading workflow. Pricing: free; call directly without x402. Routing: free hosted call; call directly and keep it small/exact when possible. 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.
`type`	Yes	Trade event type.
`notes`	No	Optional notes.
`market`	Yes	Market symbol.
`pnlUsd`	No	P&L in USD.
`status`	Yes	Position status.
`leverage`	Yes	Leverage multiplier.
`priceUsd`	Yes	Entry or exit price.
`feesPaidUsd`	Yes	Fees paid in USD.
`stopLossUsd`	No	Stop loss price.
`txSignature`	No	Transaction signature.
`collateralUsd`	Yes	Collateral in USD.
`takeProfitUsd`	No	Take profit price.
`positionAddress`	No	Position PDA address.

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

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description adds pricing and routing details (free, no x402, direct call) beyond annotations, which only indicate it is a write operation. However, it does not disclose failure behavior, data persistence, or side effects. The added value is moderate.

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 front-loaded with core purpose and usage, followed by necessary execution guidance. The guidance is slightly verbose but provides critical platform context. Minor verbosity does not detract significantly.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers essential context: purpose, usage timing, cost, and routing. Minor gaps (error handling) are acceptable for this tool.

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 all parameters are documented. The main description does not add extra semantic value; it only repeats schema-level info. Baseline of 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 appends a trade entry to the journal, providing specific contexts for use (open/close/SL/TP/liquidation). It distinguishes itself from the sibling `sap_trade_journal_query` by being the write counterpart.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to call ('after every trade event for tracking and P&L analysis') and notes that there is no x402 charge. While it does not mention exclusions or alternatives, the context is sufficient for a trading journal tool.

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.

Append Trade Journal Entry

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources