用于访问币安加密货币市场数据的模型上下文协议服务。
该 MCP 服务允许 AI 代理（例如 Claude、Cursor、Windsurf 等）执行币安 API 调用并获取加密货币市场的实时数据，包括价格、烛台图、订单簿等。
目的您可以直接向AI询问最新的加密货币价格、交易量、价格趋势等信息，而无需查看币安网站或使用其他工具。
可用信息
通过本MCP服务，您可以获得以下信息：
当前价格信息 - 获取指定加密货币的实时价格
订单簿数据 - 查看买卖订单深度
烛台图数据 - 获取不同时间段的烛台数据
24小时价格变动 - 查看24小时内的价格变动
交易历史-查看近期交易记录
价格统计 - 获取各个时间窗口的价格统计数据
Related MCP server: Binance Cryptocurrency MCP
工具 | 描述 |
| 获取指定加密货币的当前价格 |
| 获取订单簿数据 |
| 获取最近交易列表 |
| 获取历史交易数据 |
| 获取聚合交易列表 |
| 获取K线/K线数据 |
| 获取UI优化的K线数据 |
| 获取当前平均价格 |
| 获取24小时价格变化统计数据 |
| 获取交易日市场信息 |
| 获取订单簿代码 |
| 获取滚动窗口价格变化统计数据 |
全局安装
使用 npx 运行 MCP 服务：
npx -y @snjyor/binance-mcp@latest在 Cursor IDE 中：
前往Cursor Settings > MCP
点击+ Add New MCP Service
填写表格：
名称： binance
类型： command
命令： npx -y @snjyor/binance-mcp@latest
项目安装
将.cursor/mcp.json文件添加到您的项目：
{
"mcpServers": {
"binance": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"@snjyor/binance-mcp@latest"
]
}
}
}用法
配置完成后，币安市场数据工具将自动提供给 Cursor AI 代理：
该工具将在 MCP 设置中的Available Tools下列出
代理将在相关时自动使用它
您可以明确要求代理使用这些工具
{
"mcpServers": {
"binance": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"@snjyor/binance-mcp@latest"
]
}
}
}以下是一些使用示例：
查询比特币价格
Please tell me the current price of Bitcoin查看以太坊 24 小时价格走势
How has Ethereum's price changed in the past 24 hours?获取BNB的K线数据
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 start要调试您的服务器，您可以使用MCP Inspector 。
首先搭建服务器
npm run build在终端中运行以下命令：
# 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
