Cofferline

prepare_pm_order

Prepare a client-signed Polymarket order: policy-checked, then returns the exact EIP-712 payload to sign outside MCP (this server cannot sign) plus a prepare_id — submit both via submit_pm_order. Auth required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`state`	No	optional current exposure: {market_exposure_usd, realized_loss_today_usd, total_open_exposure_usd} as decimal strings
`venue`	Yes
`action`	Yes
`wallet`	Yes	treasury wallet whose policy governs the order
`token_id`	Yes	outcome token id, decimal string
`price_usd`	Yes	limit price, '0.xx'
`size_shares`	Yes	share count, decimal string
`condition_id`	Yes	market condition id
`credential_id`	Yes	stored credential id (uuid)
`client_order_id`	No	optional idempotency uuid

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the server cannot sign, returns an unsigned EIP-712 payload and prepare_id, performs a policy check, and requires auth. It does not mention side effects like whether a prepared order record persists or expires, but the core behavioral trait (preparation only) is explicit.

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?

A single dense sentence delivers purpose, workflow, limitation, and auth requirement without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main action and every clause adds value.

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?

This is a complex tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, so describing return values is essential. The description adequately explains the two-part return (payload + prepare_id) and the follow-up submission. It lacks details on policy-check failure modes, expiration, or the state parameter's role, but the main workflow is clear enough for an agent to proceed.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the output being an EIP-712 payload, which connects the parameters to the signing flow, but does not add per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema already 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?

Uses a specific verb 'Prepare' with a precise resource 'client-signed Polymarket order' and explicitly describes the outputs (EIP-712 payload, prepare_id) and the follow-up tool (submit_pm_order). This clearly differentiates it from sibling submission tools.

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?

Clearly states the workflow: prepare here, then submit both via submit_pm_order. It implicitly distinguishes from server-signed creation by emphasizing client-signing and the server's inability to sign, but does not explicitly name create_pm_order as an alternative or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.

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

All Cofferline 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

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action. Within the prediction market domain, prepare vs create vs submit are clearly differentiated by signing model (client-signed vs server-signed). Even similar-sounding tools like check_spend and check_pm_order are unambiguously scoped to general spending vs PM orders, and their descriptions reinforce the boundary.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 47 tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase snake_case. Verbs like get, list, create, cancel, revoke, prepare, submit, set, remove, and poll are used uniformly. There is no mixing of styles or vague verbs like 'process' or 'run', making the surface highly predictable.

Tool Count2/5

47 tools is significantly above the 25-tool threshold for 'too many'. While the server covers a broad and complex domain (prediction markets, policy, delegations), the sheer count makes the surface heavy and potentially overwhelming. Some consolidation (e.g., merging related PM order operations) could reduce cognitive load without sacrificing functionality.

Completeness4/5

The tool set provides comprehensive lifecycle coverage across all major subdomains: authentication, policy versioning, delegation CRUD (prepare/confirm/list/get/revoke/renew), intent management, PM order flow (create/cancel/list/prepare/submit/check), credential management (store/list/revoke), balance and top-up operations, and account-level actions (export, offboard, panic). Minor omissions exist (e.g., no dedicated tool to view a single credential in detail or update an intent), but agents can work around these with existing tools.

Resources

Need Help?