Get the current floor ask price from the native CryptoPunks marketplace. Excludes restricted (onlySellTo) and zero-value listings. Returns totalActive (same denominator as get_listings). Rate limit: 10 per 10 min (read bucket — shared with browse_types, browse_traits, get_punk_details, get_listings, get_bids_for_punk, get_bids_for_merkle_root).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it excludes restricted and zero-value listings, returns totalActive with the same denominator as get_listings, and specifies a rate limit with a shared bucket. This goes beyond the annotation to inform about constraints and output semantics.
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 three sentences and front-loads the core purpose. The rate-limit sentence is slightly verbose with its list of shared tools, but it is still clear and compact enough not to distract from the main function.
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 no-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers essential context: return field, exclusions, and rate limits. It could be more explicit about the full output structure, but the mention of totalActive and the denominator suffices for a simple floor-price query.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers inputs with 100% coverage. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, but it clarifies the output meaning (totalActive), which adds useful context beyond the schema.
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 gets the current floor ask price from the native CryptoPunks marketplace, with specific exclusions. This distinct purpose separates it from sibling tools like get_listings or 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 implies the tool is for obtaining the floor price and notes a shared rate limit with other read tools, but it does not explicitly explain when to choose this over alternatives like get_listings. No direct 'use this when' or 'instead of' guidance is given, only inferred context.
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.