바이낸스 암호화폐 시장 데이터에 접근하기 위한 모델 컨텍스트 프로토콜 서비스입니다.
이 MCP 서비스를 사용하면 AI 에이전트(예: Claude, Cursor, Windsurf 등)가 Binance API 호출을 실행하고 가격, 캔들스틱 차트, 주문장 등을 포함한 암호화폐 시장의 실시간 데이터를 얻을 수 있습니다.
목적 바이낸스 웹사이트를 확인하거나 다른 도구를 사용하지 않고도 AI에 최신 암호화폐 가격, 거래량, 가격 추세 및 기타 정보를 직접 문의할 수 있습니다.
사용 가능한 정보
이 MCP 서비스를 통해 다음과 같은 정보를 얻을 수 있습니다.
현재 가격 정보 - 지정된 암호화폐의 실시간 가격을 확인하세요
주문장 데이터 - 매수 및 매도 주문 깊이 보기
캔들스틱 차트 데이터 - 다양한 기간의 캔들스틱 데이터 얻기
24시간 가격 변동 - 24시간 내 가격 변동 보기
거래 내역 - 최근 거래 내역 보기
가격 통계 - 다양한 시간대에 대한 가격 통계를 얻으세요
Related MCP server: Binance Cryptocurrency MCP
도구 | 설명 |
| 지정된 암호화폐의 현재 가격을 알아보세요 |
| 주문서 데이터 가져오기 |
| 최근 거래 목록 가져오기 |
| 과거 거래 데이터 가져오기 |
| 집계 거래 목록 가져오기 |
| K-라인/캔들스틱 데이터 가져오기 |
| UI 최적화된 K-라인 데이터 가져오기 |
| 현재 평균 가격을 알아보세요 |
| 24시간 가격 변동 통계를 받아보세요 |
| 거래일 시장 정보를 얻으세요 |
| 주문서 티커 받기 |
| 롤링 윈도우 가격 변동 통계를 받아보세요 |
글로벌 설치
npx를 사용하여 MCP 서비스를 실행합니다.
지엑스피1
커서 IDE에서:
Cursor Settings > MCP 로 이동하세요
+ Add New MCP Service 클릭하세요
양식을 작성하세요:
이름: binance
유형: command
명령어: npx -y @snjyor/binance-mcp@latest
프로젝트 설치
프로젝트에 .cursor/mcp.json 파일을 추가합니다.
{
"mcpServers": {
"binance": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"@snjyor/binance-mcp@latest"
]
}
}
}용법
구성 후, Binance 시장 데이터 도구는 Cursor AI 에이전트에서 자동으로 사용할 수 있습니다.
해당 도구는 MCP 설정의 Available Tools 에 나열됩니다.
관련성이 있는 경우 에이전트가 자동으로 이를 사용합니다.
에이전트에게 이러한 도구를 사용하도록 명시적으로 요청할 수 있습니다.
{
"mcpServers": {
"binance": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"@snjyor/binance-mcp@latest"
]
}
}
}다음은 몇 가지 사용 예입니다.
비트코인 가격 조회
Please tell me the current price of Bitcoin이더리움의 24시간 가격 변동 보기
How has Ethereum's price changed in the past 24 hours?BNB의 K-라인 데이터를 받아보세요
Show me the daily K-line data for BNB over the last 5 days# Install dependencies
npm install
# Build
npm run build
# Local testing
npm run start서버를 디버깅하려면 MCP Inspector를 사용할 수 있습니다.
먼저 서버를 빌드하세요
npm run build터미널에서 다음 명령을 실행하세요.
# Start MCP Inspector and server
npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector node dist/index.js| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | No | Trading pair symbol, e.g. BTCUSDT | |
| symbols | No | Array of multiple trading pair symbols |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Trading pair symbol, e.g. BTCUSDT | |
| fromId | No | Aggregate trade ID to start from | |
| startTime | No | Start timestamp (milliseconds) | |
| endTime | No | End timestamp (milliseconds) | |
| limit | No | Number of trades to return, default 500, max 1000 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Trading pair symbol, e.g. BTCUSDT |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | No | Trading pair symbol, e.g. BTCUSDT | |
| symbols | No | Array of multiple trading pair symbols |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Trading pair symbol, e.g. BTCUSDT | |
| limit | No | Number of trades to return, default 500, max 1000 | |
| fromId | No | Trade ID to start from, default returns the most recent trades |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Trading pair symbol, e.g. BTCUSDT | |
| interval | Yes | K-line interval, e.g. 1m, 3m, 5m, 15m, 30m, 1h, 2h, 4h, 6h, 8h, 12h, 1d, 3d, 1w, 1M | |
| startTime | No | Start timestamp (milliseconds) | |
| endTime | No | End timestamp (milliseconds) | |
| timeZone | No | Time zone, default UTC | |
| limit | No | Number of K-lines to return, default 500, max 1000 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Trading pair symbol, e.g. BTCUSDT | |
| limit | No | Order book depth, default 100, max 5000 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | No | Trading pair symbol, e.g. BTCUSDT | |
| symbols | No | Array of multiple trading pair symbols |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Trading pair symbol, e.g. BTCUSDT | |
| limit | No | Number of trades to return, default 500, max 1000 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | No | Trading pair symbol, e.g. BTCUSDT | |
| symbols | No | Array of multiple trading pair symbols | |
| windowSize | No | Window size, e.g. 1m, 4h, 1d | |
| type | No | Return data type, FULL or MINI |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | No | Trading pair symbol, e.g. BTCUSDT | |
| symbols | No | Array of multiple trading pair symbols | |
| timeZone | No | Time zone, default 0 | |
| type | No | Return data type, FULL or MINI |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Trading pair symbol, e.g. BTCUSDT | |
| interval | Yes | K-line interval, e.g. 1m, 3m, 5m, 15m, 30m, 1h, 2h, 4h, 6h, 8h, 12h, 1d, 3d, 1w, 1M | |
| startTime | No | Start timestamp (milliseconds) | |
| endTime | No | End timestamp (milliseconds) | |
| timeZone | No | Time zone, default UTC | |
| limit | No | Number of K-lines to return, default 500, max 1000 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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_24hr_tickerget_aggregate_tradesget_avg_priceget_book_tickerget_historical_tradesget_klinesget_order_bookget_priceget_recent_tradesget_rolling_window_tickerget_trading_day_tickerget_ui_klinesScored across 12 tools
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes focused on different market data aspects (e.g., ticker data, trades, order book, price, klines). However, some potential overlap exists between get_24hr_ticker, get_rolling_window_ticker, and get_trading_day_ticker, which could cause confusion about which specific ticker data is needed.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'get_' prefix followed by descriptive snake_case nouns. The naming is highly predictable and uniform throughout the entire tool set.
12 tools is reasonable for a cryptocurrency exchange data server, providing comprehensive market data coverage. It's slightly on the higher side but well-justified for the domain, though some consolidation might be possible (e.g., multiple ticker tools).
The tool set covers extensive market data retrieval (tickers, trades, order book, price, klines) but lacks trading operations (create/cancel orders, account management) and other exchange functionalities. This creates a significant gap for agents needing to perform actual trading actions beyond data observation.
Unlock the power of real-time cryptocurrency data with our Crypto Price Insights MCP server.
Crypto market data for AI agents: live prices, OHLCV, sentiment, indicators and exchanges.
Your agent needs crypto prices it can rely on — spot, ranked market tables, history, OHLC, per-venue tickers, and what is trending right now. **What you can ask for** • "What is the price of these 20 tokens in USD and EUR right now?" • "Give me the top 100 by market cap with 24h and 7d change." • "Chart this coin's price over the last year, hourly." • "Where does this token trade, and at what spread per venue?" • "What is trending on CoinGecko today?" **How to use it** Point any MCP client at https://mcp.aisa.one/crypto-market-data/mcp and sign in with OAuth — there is no key to create or paste. 21 CoinGecko tools: simple price and token price by contract, supported currencies, coin list and detail, ranked markets, history, market charts and ranges, OHLC, per-coin tickers, categories, exchanges and their tickers, token data and charts, and trending. **It is also a door to the rest** The same login reaches 26 sources and 580+ operations. Price the token here, then ask the same agent what X is posting about it — without adding a second server. **What it costs** Finding and inspecting an operation is free. Running one is billed per call at API prices, with no seat and no monthly minimum, and every call takes max_price_usd so an agent cannot overspend by accident. **Where else it reaches** https://mcp.aisa.one/finance/mcp for equities, crypto and prediction markets in one place.
MCP server giving AI agents one-connection access to crypto & DeFi data: DeFi protocol TVL, stableco
