Skip to main content
Glama
Deconstruct2021

cryptopunks-mcp-server

get_punk_history

Retrieve the complete transaction history for a specific CryptoPunk, including initial claims, transfers, offers, bids, and sales with detailed event data.

Instructions

Get the full transaction history for a specific CryptoPunk from initial claim through all transfers, offers, bids, and sales. Each event includes type, from/to addresses with ENS, amount in wei and USD, timestamp, and transaction hash. Uses the POST endpoint for reliable history retrieval.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
punk_indexYesCryptoPunk index (0–9999)

Implementation Reference

  • The implementation of getPunkHistory, which calls the POST endpoint for transaction history.
    export async function getPunkHistory(punkIndex: number) {
      return post(DATA_BASE, `/api/punks/${punkIndex}/details`, {});
    }
  • src/tools.ts:74-78 (registration)
    Tool definition for get_punk_history.
    get_punk_history: {
      description:
        "Get the full transaction history for a specific CryptoPunk from initial claim through all transfers, offers, bids, and sales. Each event includes type, from/to addresses with ENS, amount in wei and USD, timestamp, and transaction hash. Uses the POST endpoint for reliable history retrieval.",
      inputSchema: z.object({ punk_index: punkIndex }),
    },
  • The handler logic that invokes the API client for get_punk_history.
    case "get_punk_history": {
      const result = await api.getPunkHistory(args.punk_index);
      return ok(result);
    }
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: it describes the scope of events (initial claim through all transfers, offers, bids, and sales), the data included in each event, and mentions 'Uses the POST endpoint for reliable history retrieval' which hints at implementation details. However, it doesn't cover potential limitations like rate limits, error conditions, or data freshness, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first explains what the tool does and what data it returns, and the second adds implementation context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (retrieving detailed historical data), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job of explaining the scope and content of the returned data. It covers the types of events and data fields included, which is crucial for understanding the tool's output. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the response structure or pagination, but it's largely complete for its purpose.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'punk_index' well-documented in the schema (CryptoPunk index 0–9999). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, but it reinforces the context by mentioning 'for a specific CryptoPunk'. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema 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 tool's purpose: 'Get the full transaction history for a specific CryptoPunk' with specific details on what events are included (initial claim, transfers, offers, bids, sales) and what data each event contains (type, addresses, amounts, timestamp, transaction hash). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_batch_recent_history or get_recent_sales by focusing on a single punk's complete history rather than batch or recent data.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'for a specific CryptoPunk' and 'full transaction history', suggesting it should be used when detailed historical data is needed for one punk. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_batch_recent_history or get_recent_sales, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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