cryptopunks-mcp-server

verify_batch_proofs

Verify multiple CryptoPunks ownership proofs simultaneously against a single Merkle root using pure computation, returning individual results per punk without requiring wallet access.

Instructions

Verify Merkle proofs for multiple punks against a single Merkle root. Pure computation, no wallet required. Returns a result per punk index.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`proofs`	Yes	Object mapping punk index (as string) to its proof array
`root`	Yes	The Merkle root to verify against

Implementation Reference

src/api.ts:279-284 (handler)

Implementation of the verifyBatchProofs function which calls the /api/v1/merkle/verify-batch endpoint.

export async function verifyBatchProofs(
  proofs: Record<string, string[]>,
  root: string,
) {
  return post(BIDS_BASE, "/api/v1/merkle/verify-batch", { proofs, root });
}

src/tools.ts:279-288 (registration)

Tool definition for verify_batch_proofs.

verify_batch_proofs: {
  description:
    "Verify Merkle proofs for multiple punks against a single Merkle root. Pure computation, no wallet required. Returns a result per punk index.",
  inputSchema: z.object({
    proofs: z
      .record(z.string(), z.array(z.string()))
      .describe("Object mapping punk index (as string) to its proof array"),
    root: z.string().describe("The Merkle root to verify against"),
  }),
},

Tool Definition Quality

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a pure computation (stateless, no side effects), requires no wallet (no authentication needed), and returns results per punk index. It doesn't mention error handling, performance characteristics, or rate limits, but covers the essential safety profile.

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?

Three concise sentences with zero waste: first states purpose, second adds behavioral context, third specifies output format. Each sentence earns its place by providing distinct, valuable information beyond what's in the name or schema.

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?

For a pure computation tool with no annotations but 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, behavioral context, and output format. The main gap is lack of explicit guidance on when to use batch vs singular verification, but otherwise it provides sufficient context for agent decision-making.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain proof array format or root encoding). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 specific action ('verify Merkle proofs'), the resource ('multiple punks'), and the scope ('against a single Merkle root'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'verify_merkle_proof' (singular) and 'generate_batch_proofs' (generation vs verification).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context through 'Pure computation, no wallet required,' suggesting this is a stateless verification tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this batch version versus the singular 'verify_merkle_proof' sibling tool, nor does it mention prerequisites or alternatives.

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

Install Server

Latest Blog Posts

Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
By punkpeye on April 3, 2026.
mcp
The Hackers Who Tracked My Sleep Cycle
By punkpeye on March 26, 2026.
security
Open Source Has a Bot Problem
By punkpeye on March 19, 2026.
open source

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