Allows retrieval of real-time and historical cryptocurrency price data from the Binance exchange, supporting various time resolutions and fiat currency conversions.
Allows retrieval of real-time and historical cryptocurrency price data from the Coinbase exchange, supporting various time resolutions and fiat currency conversions.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Price Service MCP What's the current price of BTC on Coinbase in USD?"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that provides cryptocurrency price data retrieval capabilities. This server connects to BitwaveCorp's price service API to fetch real-time and historical cryptocurrency prices.
get_price: Fetch cryptocurrency price data with customizable parameters
health_check: Check the health status of the price service
Support for multiple exchanges (Coinbase, Binance, Kraken)
Historical price data with timestamp support
Multiple time resolutions (1m, 5m, 15m, 1h, 4h, 1d)
Configurable fiat currency conversion
Related MCP server: Crypto MCP Server
npm install
npm run buildnpm run devnpm run build
npm startRetrieve cryptocurrency price data from the price service.
Parameters:
fromSym (required): Cryptocurrency symbol (e.g., "BTC", "ETH")
timestampSEC (optional): Unix timestamp in seconds for historical price
service (optional): Price service to use ("coinbase", "binance", "kraken") - default: "coinbase"
resolution (optional): Time resolution ("1m", "5m", "15m", "1h", "4h", "1d") - default: "1d"
toFiat (optional): Target fiat currency - default: "USD"
timezone (optional): Timezone for timestamp - default: "UTC"
Example:
{
"fromSym": "BTC",
"service": "coinbase",
"toFiat": "USD"
}Check the health status of both the MCP server and the underlying price service.
Parameters: None
Add this to your Claude Desktop configuration (~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json):
{
"mcpServers": {
"price-service": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/path/to/price-service-mcp/build/index.js"]
}
}
}The MCP server connects to: https://price-svc-utyjy373hq-uc.a.run.app
Clone the repository
Install dependencies: npm install
Build the project: npm run build
Run in development mode: npm run dev
MIT
Contributions are welcome! Please feel free to submit a Pull Request.
Get cryptocurrency price data from the price service
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fromSym | Yes | The cryptocurrency symbol to get price for (e.g., BTC, ETH) | |
| timestampSEC | No | Unix timestamp in seconds for historical price (optional) | |
| service | No | Price service to use (default: coinbase) | coinbase |
| resolution | No | Time resolution for price data (default: 1d) | 1d |
| toFiat | No | Target fiat currency (default: USD) | USD |
| timezone | No | Timezone for timestamp (default: UTC) | UTC |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does at a high level ('Get cryptocurrency price data') without describing response format, error conditions, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a real-time or cached service. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward data retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters including historical data options) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what price data is returned (single price? OHLC? volume?), how historical timestamps work with different resolutions, or what the response structure looks like. For a price data tool with multiple configuration options, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, enums, defaults, and required status. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Get cryptocurrency price data from the price service' - a specific verb ('Get') with resource ('cryptocurrency price data') and source ('price service'). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools, but the only sibling is 'health_check' which serves a completely different purpose, so differentiation isn't needed here.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While there's only one sibling tool ('health_check') with an unrelated purpose, the description doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases for price data retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check the health status of the price service
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but provides no information about what 'health status' means, what the response format might be, whether this is a read-only operation, or any performance characteristics. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the lack of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple health check tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a health check tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes 'health status', what format the response takes, what values might indicate problems, or how this differs from other service monitoring approaches. The context signals show this is a simple tool, but the description doesn't provide enough operational guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and the schema already fully documents this absence.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Check') and target ('health status of the price service'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'get_price', which appears to be a different operation (fetching price data vs. checking service health).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose suggests it's for monitoring service health, there's no mention of when this check should be performed, what triggers its use, or how it differs from simply calling 'get_price' to test service availability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
get_pricehealth_checkScored across 2 tools
The two tools have completely distinct purposes: get_price retrieves cryptocurrency price data, while health_check monitors the service's operational status. There is no overlap or ambiguity in their functions, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool for each task.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern (get_price, health_check), using clear and descriptive verbs that align with their actions. The naming is uniform and predictable across the tool set.
With only two tools, the server feels under-scoped for a price service domain. While get_price is essential, the tool set lacks operations like historical price retrieval, multi-asset queries, or market data analysis, making it too limited for typical cryptocurrency price service workflows.
The tool set is severely incomplete for a cryptocurrency price service. It includes basic price fetching and health monitoring but misses critical operations such as historical price data, price comparisons, or support for multiple cryptocurrencies, which are standard expectations in this domain.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Real-time crypto prices from Binance, Coinbase, Kraken, OKX, and Bybit
Live and historical cryptocurrency prices via CoinGecko free API.
Live USD crypto spot prices by ticker (BTC, ETH, SOL, …) for AI agents. x402 pay-per-call.
Live crypto prices, conversion, gas tracker, portfolio tools, and calculators for AI agents.
