Sera MCP Server

Official

by sera-cx

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Remote

execute_deposit

Move tokens from your wallet to the Sera exchange to enable trading. Uses your wallet private key for authorization.

Instructions

Execute a deposit to move funds from wallet to exchange. Requires WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "token_address": "<token_address>",
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "execute_deposit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`amount`	Yes	Amount to deposit (human-readable, e.g., '100' for 100 tokens)
`token_address`	Yes	Token to deposit

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the critical security requirement (WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY) and the general side effect of moving funds. However, it does not mention reversibility, network fees, failure modes, or response behavior, leaving notable gaps for a financial transaction.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two concise sentences: an action statement and a prerequisite. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no filler or redundant wording.

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?

For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose and key requirement but omits return-value behavior and side effects. It is adequate but not fully contextual, especially given the existence of a prepare_deposit sibling.

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 provides 100% coverage with clear parameter descriptions ('Amount to deposit' and 'Token to deposit'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb and resource: 'Execute a deposit to move funds from wallet to exchange.' It distinguishes the direction from sibling execute_withdraw and implies execution rather than preparation, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 gives context that this tool is for moving funds from wallet to exchange and mentions a prerequisite (WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY), but it does not explicitly guide when to use this over other sibling tools like prepare_deposit or when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than fully specified.

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