So, I have always wondered this, with the majority of Carthaginian books be destroyed or lost after the Third Punic war how much do we actually know about Carthage?
The short answer is: not much. I'd suggest taking a look at Carthage Must Be Destroyed, by Richard Miles - IMHO, it does a very good job of marshalling non-Roman material as well as trying to see through the bias of Roman sources.
Which is the big problem, as far as I know there is not one Carthaginian written source!
Everything we know about Carthage was written by somebody else, and the Roman accounts are uniformly biased. The Greeks are a little better, and are even occasionally complimentary, such as Aristotle, but most Greek material is from the perspective of an enemy.
For example, the classic condemnation of their religious practices, ie. the child sacrifices, does not stand up well to testing.
That whole "Child sacrifice was just a blood libel" idea doesn't really stand up to scrutiny IMHO. After all, the Romans were quite capable of conquering other peoples without accusing them of human sacrifice.
Also, for what it's worth a recent study has come down in favour of the child sacrifice side:
http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2014/140123_1.html
Roman sources contain value judgments in regards to the Carthaginians, but I suspect the actual information is likely to be at least broadly correct. This is speculation, of course, but the fact that Romans never attempted to obfuscate how closely matched they and Carthage were as well as a lot of the accounts presenting the Romans in a bad light rather than the Carthaginians (such as with the fighting in Italy) suggests to me that there will be relatively few deliberate falsehoods in the Roman accounts. Honestly, for how much they tended to gossip about each other, it's surprising that the Romans didn't usually tell outright lies in their versions of events.