Skip to main content
Glama

SAP MCP Server

by ai.oobeprotocol.sap.mcp

Check SAP x402 Escrow

sap_x402_has_escrow

Check whether an x402 escrow exists for an agent/depositor pair. SAP MCP context: Payment and settlement flow. Estimate or fetch state before creating escrows or settling calls; write operations require an enabled signer mode and MCP policy approval.

SAP MCP execution guidance: Intent: SAP MCP tool workflow. Pricing: priced by hosted x402 challenge. 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
nonceNoOptional escrow nonce as a decimal string. Defaults to 0.
depositorNoOptional depositor wallet (base58); defaults to caller in SDK
agentWalletNoAgent wallet public key (base58)

Output Schema

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

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint false and destructiveHint false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool is priced (by hosted x402 challenge), requires prior cost estimation, and notes signer boundary policies. This goes beyond mere safety flags, helping the agent understand side effects (cost) and operational constraints.

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 starts with a clear purpose sentence but becomes verbose with boilerplate SAP MCP execution guidance that is also repeated in the input schema description. Some sentences feel like internal notes rather than lean user guidance. Could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 this is a simple existence check with three parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context (precondition for escrow create/settle), pricing, routing, and signer boundary. It does not explicitly state the return type (boolean), but the output schema likely handles that. Overall comprehensive for the tool's simplicity.

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% and the input schema already fully documents each parameter with clear descriptions (nonce 'decimal string defaults to 0', depositor 'optional defaults to caller', agentWallet 'base58'). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with 'Check whether an x402 escrow exists for an agent/depositor pair,' which is a specific verb+resource+scope. The verb 'check' and the phrase 'exists' make the boolean intent clear, and it distinguishes itself from related tools like sap_x402_fetch_escrow by focusing on existence rather than detailed data.

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 provides explicit context: 'Estimate or fetch state before creating escrows or settling calls,' which tells when to use this tool. It also notes prerequisites for write operations ('enabled signer mode and MCP policy approval') and gives SAP MCP execution guidance on pricing and routing, offering a clear use-case framework. It does not explicitly mention alternatives but the context is strong.

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