LiquidVision — Crypto Derivatives Data

list_alerts

Read-onlyIdempotent

The webhook alert subscriptions that belong to the caller's API key (read-only): id, type, url, filters (symbol, min_usd, x_normal, max_dist_pct) and delivery health: last_status (HTTP code or error of the last delivery), fails (consecutive failures; a subscription pauses itself at 20) and active. Call it to find the id for delete_alert or to check why alerts stopped arriving. Needs a Pro or Bot key, from the MCP connection's X-API-Key header or the api_key argument; without one it returns an error object, not an exception.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_alerts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`api_key`	No	LiquidVision API key (lv_...). Omit when the key is sent as the X-API-Key header on the connection.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 6, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / api_key / description

Added value: +"LiquidVision API key (lv_...). Omit when the key is sent as the X-API-Key header on the connection."

AddedSep 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well past the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/openWorld) by disclosing the auth requirement (Pro or Bot key via X-API-Key header or api_key argument) and the failure mode (returns an error object rather than raising). It also explains operational behavior an agent needs to interpret results: a subscription self-pauses at 20 consecutive failures, and last_status/fails carry delivery health.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and its fields, then when to call it, then auth and error behavior. The field enumeration is dense but each item (min_usd, x_normal, max_dist_pct, fails) is information the caller acts on, not filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-shape burden, and it does: it names every field plus the semantics of the health fields. Auth requirements, error behavior, and the self-pause threshold cover everything needed to call this correctly against a single optional parameter.

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 coverage is 100%, so api_key is already documented there; the description still adds meaning by naming the key tier required (Pro or Bot) and the precedence between the header and the argument, which the schema alone does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list the caller's webhook alert subscriptions) plus scope (read-only, scoped to the API key) and the exact fields returned. An agent can distinguish it from create_alert/delete_alert without opening any schema.

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?

Gives two concrete trigger cases: retrieving an id for delete_alert and diagnosing why alerts stopped arriving. It names the downstream sibling explicitly but does not state any exclusion (e.g., that it cannot create or modify subscriptions), leaving that inference to the reader.

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

All LiquidVision — Crypto Derivatives Data tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?