Get pending EIP-712 bids matching a specific Merkle root. Useful for seeing competition on a trait-based bid set. Rate limit: 10 per 10 min (read bucket — shared with browse_types, browse_traits, get_punk_details, get_listings, get_floor_price, get_bids_for_punk).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max bids to return (default 5) | |
| merkleRoot | Yes | Merkle root (0x-prefixed, 32 bytes hex) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds important behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, specifically the rate limit: 'Rate limit: 10 per 10 min (read bucket — shared with browse_types, browse_traits, get_punk_details, get_listings, get_floor_price, get_bids_for_punk).' This informs the agent of usage constraints and shared quota, which is valuable. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then a use case and rate limit. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or excess. It is concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, use case, and rate limit. It does not describe the return format or pagination, but given the simplicity and the annotations, it is reasonably complete. The shared read bucket detail adds operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (merkleRoot and limit). The description itself does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, but it reinforces the purpose by mentioning 'specific Merkle root.' Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get pending EIP-712 bids matching a specific Merkle root.' This uses a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('pending EIP-712 bids'), and a specific qualifier ('matching a specific Merkle root'). It also adds context about its use case ('seeing competition on a trait-based bid set'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_bids_for_punk.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use the tool: 'Useful for seeing competition on a trait-based bid set.' This implies a specific scenario but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. It doesn't say 'use get_bids_for_punk instead' or 'not for direct punk bids,' but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool targets a distinct resource or action: trait/type browsing, punk metadata, listings/floor price, bids by root/punk, Merkle computation/filtering/resolution, and bid recommendations. The related Merkle tools have clear boundaries: compute builds a root from IDs, filter returns IDs for a trait selection, and resolve reverses a root only if it has bids.
All tool names follow a consistent `verb_noun` pattern in snake_case (e.g., browse_traits, get_floor_price, resolve_merkle_root). The two bid lookup tools use the same `get_bids_for_X` structure, reinforcing predictability.
Eleven tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and each covers a necessary facet of the CryptoPunks domain—from market data (listings, floor) to trait-based bid analysis (merkle roots, recommendations). No redundancy or bloat.
The tool surface covers the full read-side lifecycle: viewing traits/types/punks, checking market prices/listings, analyzing existing bids, and supporting trait-based bid strategies through Merkle root operations and recommendations. It lacks write actions (e.g., placing bids), but the server's purpose is clearly analytical, so no obvious operational gap exists.