Skip to main content
Glama
Deconstruct2021

cryptopunks-mcp-server

get_punk_details

Retrieve comprehensive details for a specific CryptoPunk, including owner, price, attributes, and optional transaction history, to support market research and rarity analysis.

Instructions

Get full details for a specific CryptoPunk including owner, for-sale price, active bid, all attributes, and optionally the complete transaction history (transfers, sales, bids, offers). When include_history is true, history is fetched via the reliable POST endpoint.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
punk_indexYesCryptoPunk index (0–9999)
include_historyNoSet true to include the full transaction history

Implementation Reference

  • The handler for "get_punk_details" which calls the API function and returns the result using the helper "ok".
    case "get_punk_details": {
      const result = await api.getPunkDetails(args.punk_index, args.include_history ?? false);
      return ok(result);
    }
  • The implementation of "getPunkDetails", handling logic to fetch both details and history if requested.
    export async function getPunkDetails(punkIndex: number, includeHistory = false) {
      // Bug 3 fix: GET with includeHistory returns null history for some punks.
      // When history is requested, use the POST endpoint which reliably returns
      // full transaction history, then merge with details from GET.
      if (includeHistory) {
        const [details, history] = await Promise.all([
          get(DATA_BASE, `/api/punks/${punkIndex}/details`, { includeHistory: "false" }),
          post(DATA_BASE, `/api/punks/${punkIndex}/details`, {}),
        ]);
        // Both responses are wrapped in { success, data: { ... } }
        const detailsWrapper = details as { success?: boolean; data?: Record<string, unknown> };
        const historyWrapper = history as { success?: boolean; data?: Record<string, unknown> };
        const detailsData = detailsWrapper.data ?? detailsWrapper;
        const historyData = historyWrapper.data ?? historyWrapper;
        return {
          success: true,
          data: {
            ...(detailsData as Record<string, unknown>),
            transactionHistory:
              (historyData as Record<string, unknown>).transactionHistory ?? historyData,
            _historySource: "POST",
          },
        };
      }
      return get(DATA_BASE, `/api/punks/${punkIndex}/details`, { includeHistory: "false" });
    }
  • Definition and input schema for "get_punk_details".
    get_punk_details: {
      description:
        "Get full details for a specific CryptoPunk including owner, for-sale price, active bid, all attributes, and optionally the complete transaction history (transfers, sales, bids, offers). When include_history is true, history is fetched via the reliable POST endpoint.",
      inputSchema: z.object({
        punk_index: punkIndex,
        include_history: z
          .boolean()
          .optional()
          .default(false)
          .describe("Set true to include the full transaction history"),
      }),
    },
Behavior3/5

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 history fetching uses a 'reliable POST endpoint' when include_history is true, adding implementation context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or response format, which are important for a tool with no output schema. The description does not contradict any annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and key data points, followed by a specific behavioral note about the history endpoint. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and some behavioral context (POST endpoint for history). However, it lacks details on response structure, error handling, or authentication needs, which are gaps for a tool fetching detailed data. It's adequate but has clear room for improvement.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds value by explaining that include_history fetches 'complete transaction history' and clarifies it uses a POST endpoint, providing context beyond the schema's boolean description. With 0 parameters, baseline would be 4, but here it compensates well for the high coverage.

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 'Get' and specifies the resource 'full details for a specific CryptoPunk', listing specific data points like owner, price, bid, attributes, and transaction history. It distinguishes from siblings like get_punk (likely basic info), get_punk_history (just history), and get_punk_metadata (just metadata) by emphasizing comprehensive details.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to retrieve detailed information about a specific CryptoPunk, optionally with history. It implies usage vs. simpler siblings by mentioning 'full details' and the include_history parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, keeping it from a perfect score.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Deconstruct2021/cryptopunks-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server