Chain Daddy

List my alert rules

list_alert_rules

Read-onlyIdempotent

List your alert rules

Returns the alert rules owned by the signed-in wallet, newest first, each with its token, alert type, threshold, cooldown and whether it is enabled. A rule's id is what update, toggle and delete take. Narrows to one token with BOTH chainId and tokenAddress; a symbol is refused with 400 invalid_filter (one ticker can name several tokens), and narrowing needs both of the pair. Rules belong to the wallet signed in with, not to the whole account: a rule made from another linked wallet is not listed here.

Needs Sign in with Chain Daddy (scope api:read).

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_alert_rules"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chainId`	No	Narrow to one token. Chain key (`base`), numeric id or CAIP-2 id. Send together with `tokenAddress`.
`tokenAddress`	No	Narrow to one token (0x address on EVM, mint on Solana). Send together with `chainId`.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`rules`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses wallet-level ownership isolation (a rule made from another linked wallet is not listed), the auth requirement and required scope (Sign in with Chain Daddy, api:read), sort order, and a specific failure mode (400 `invalid_filter` on `symbol`). That is substantive behavior the annotations cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and ownership scope are front-loaded, and every sentence carries information (returned fields, id usage, filter rules, error, auth). It is one dense run-on paragraph, so it is efficient but slightly heavier than ideal for scanning.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no elaboration, and the description still covers auth scope, wallet-scoping, filtering rules, error behavior, and ordering. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the pair-must-be-sent-together constraint, why `symbol` is rejected (one ticker can name several tokens), and the error code returned. This goes beyond the schema's field-level docs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("List your alert rules") plus the scope (rules owned by the signed-in wallet, newest first) and the fields returned (token, alert type, threshold, cooldown, enabled). That field list implicitly separates it from list_active_alerts, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of the 5 exemplar.

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 clear operational context: the rule `id` is the handle that update/toggle/delete consume, narrowing requires BOTH `chainId` and `tokenAddress`, and a lone `symbol` is refused. It does not state when to prefer this over list_active_alerts or create_alert_rule, so it is context-rich but lacks explicit alternatives/exclusions.

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

All Chain Daddy 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?