marketplace

prepare_offer

Prepare a BID/offer on a position: returns the Seaport order to sign (EIP-712), the currency approval needed, and how to submit it. The agent reads its Seaport counter, signs, and POSTs the signed order — settlement stays on Seaport. The buyer wallet must hold the offer's outlay (price + its fee share) when it submits; an unfunded offer is rejected (insufficient_balance), and one that later loses its funds or allowance is hidden from the book until they return.

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": {
      "marketId": "<marketId>",
      "currencySymbol": "<currencySymbol>",
      "offerAmount": "<offerAmount>",
      "buyer": "<buyer>"
    },
    "name": "prepare_offer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	name markets only, e.g. 'alice' or 'alice.base.eth' — tokenId is derived
`buyer`	Yes	0x address that will sign and fund the offer
`tokenId`	No	required for token markets (e.g. vehydx)
`marketId`	Yes
`offerAmount`	Yes	human amount the seller nets, e.g. '750' — must be positive
`durationDays`	No
`currencySymbol`	Yes	one of the market's settlementCurrencies (see list_micro_markets). A symbol resolves per market, so the same symbol can name different contracts: 'AERO' is the NEW Aero token (0x3f5b…a4Ee) on saero and the legacy Aerodrome token (0x9401…8631) on veaero. Check the address in list_micro_markets.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 30, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / currencySymbol / description

Previous value: -"one of the market's settlementCurrencies (see list_micro_markets)"New value: +"one of the market's settlementCurrencies (see list_micro_markets). A symbol resolves per market, so the same symbol can name different contracts: 'AERO' is the NEW Aero token (0x3f5b…a4Ee) on saero and the legacy Aerodrome token (0x9401…8631) on veaero. Check the address in list_micro_markets."

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so: it names the signing standard (EIP-712), the required approval step, where settlement happens (Seaport, not here), the funding precondition, the concrete failure mode and error code (insufficient_balance), and the visibility consequence of losing funds or allowance (hidden from the book). That is unusually rich behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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?

Purpose and returned artifacts are front-loaded, followed by the flow and then the funding caveat. Three sentences with essentially no filler, though the last sentence packs two failure conditions together and reads more densely than necessary.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming what comes back (order to sign, approval, submission method) and what the agent must do next. It is complete enough to act on; the only soft spot is the absence of any note on durationDays defaults or precedence between name and tokenId, which the schema leaves ambiguous.

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 71% and the schema already documents name, buyer, tokenId, offerAmount, and currencySymbol thoroughly (including the per-market symbol resolution caveat). The description adds no parameter-level detail of its own, and marketId and durationDays remain undocumented in either place. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — prepare a BID/offer on a position — and immediately enumerates the artifacts it produces (Seaport order to sign, currency approval, submission instructions). This clearly separates it from prepare_listing, prepare_purchase, and prepare_cancel without the agent needing to open another schema.

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 lays out the operating sequence (read Seaport counter, sign, POST the signed order) and a hard precondition (buyer must hold price + fee share at submit time). It does not explicitly contrast against prepare_purchase or prepare_listing, so an agent bidding on a position must infer that this tool is the offer side rather than the purchase side.

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

All marketplace 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.

Resources

Need Help?