Crypto Price & Market Analysis MCP Server
Krypto-Preis- und Marktanalyse MCP-Server
Ein Model Context Protocol (MCP)-Server, der mithilfe der CoinCap-API umfassende Kryptowährungsanalysen ermöglicht. Dieser Server bietet Echtzeit-Preisdaten, Marktanalysen und historische Trends über eine benutzerfreundliche Oberfläche.
Verwendung
Fügen Sie diese Konfiguration zu Ihrer Claude Desktop-Konfigurationsdatei hinzu:
MacOS :
~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.jsonWindows :
%APPDATA%/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
{
"mcpServers": {
"mcp-crypto-price": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "mcp-crypto-price"]
}
}
}Related MCP server: mcp-coincap-jj
Optional: CoinCap API-Schlüssel
Für höhere Ratenbegrenzungen fügen Sie Ihrer Konfiguration einen API-Schlüssel hinzu:
{
"mcpServers": {
"mcp-crypto-price": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "mcp-crypto-price"],
"env": {
"COINCAP_API_KEY": "YOUR_API_KEY_HERE"
}
}
}
}Wichtiger Hinweis : CoinCap stellt die API v2 ein. Dieses MCP unterstützt sowohl APIs v2 als auch v3:
Wenn Sie einen
COINCAP_API_KEYangeben, wird zunächst versucht, die API v3 zu verwenden und bei Bedarf auf v2 zurückzugreifen.Ohne API-Schlüssel wird die API v2 verwendet (die irgendwann eingestellt wird).
Es wird empfohlen, einen API-Schlüssel von pro.coincap.io/dashboard zu erhalten, da die v2-API in Zukunft vollständig deaktiviert wird
Starten Sie Claude Desktop, um die Kryptoanalyse-Tools zu verwenden.
Werkzeuge
Krypto-Preis abrufen
Ruft den aktuellen Preis und 24-Stunden-Statistiken für jede Kryptowährung ab, einschließlich:
Aktueller Preis in USD
24-Stunden-Preisänderung
Handelsvolumen
Marktkapitalisierung
Marktrang
Marktanalyse erhalten
Bietet eine detaillierte Marktanalyse, einschließlich:
Top 5 Börsen nach Volumen
Preisschwankungen zwischen den Börsen
Volumenverteilungsanalyse
VWAP (volumengewichteter Durchschnittspreis)
Historische Analyse erhalten
Analysiert historische Preisdaten mit:
Anpassbare Zeitintervalle (5 Minuten bis 1 Tag)
Unterstützung für bis zu 30 Tage historische Daten
Preistrendanalyse
Volatilitätsmetriken
Hohe/niedrige Preisspannen
Beispieleingabeaufforderungen
„Wie hoch ist der aktuelle Preis von Bitcoin?“
„Zeigen Sie mir eine Marktanalyse für ETH“
„Geben Sie mir den 7-Tage-Preisverlauf für DOGE“
„Welche sind die wichtigsten Börsen, an denen BTC gehandelt wird?“
„Zeigen Sie mir die Preisentwicklung für SOL im 1-Stunden-Takt“
Projektinspiration
Dieses Projekt wurde von Alex Andrus Coincap-MCP- Projekt inspiriert.
Lizenz
Dieses Projekt ist unter der MIT-Lizenz lizenziert
Available Tools
3 toolsget-crypto-priceBInspect
Get current price and 24h stats for a cryptocurrency
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Cryptocurrency symbol (e.g., BTC, ETH) |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. Only states output is price and 24h stats, but omits details like update frequency, data source, or behavior on invalid symbol.
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?
Single sentence, no unnecessary words, front-loaded with verb and resource.
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 simple tool (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), description is adequate for basic understanding but lacks detail on what '24h stats' includes (e.g., change, volume).
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%, baseline 3. Description adds no extra detail beyond 'gets crypto price for given symbol'; schema already specifies symbol as string with examples.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'get', resource 'current price and 24h stats', and scope 'cryptocurrency'. Easily distinguished from siblings 'historical-analysis' and 'market-analysis'.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., for historical data use get-historical-analysis). No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get-historical-analysisBInspect
Get historical price analysis with customizable timeframe
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Number of days to analyze (1-30) | |
| interval | No | Time interval (m5, m15, m30, h1, h2, h6, h12, d1) | h1 |
| symbol | Yes | Cryptocurrency symbol (e.g., BTC, ETH) |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as data source (e.g., real-time vs delayed), caching, rate limits, or whether the analysis includes derived metrics like moving averages.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with action and key qualifier. No wasted words, but could benefit from a second sentence to enhance completeness without harming conciseness.
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?
No output schema, so the agent cannot infer return format or fields. Description lacks details on data scope (e.g., OHLCV, volume) and pagination. Adequate for a simple analysis tool but incomplete.
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?
With 100% schema coverage, parameters are documented. The description adds 'customizable timeframe' but does not elaborate on default behavior or mutually exclusive options beyond schema.
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 retrieves historical price analysis with customizable timeframe. It distinguishes from 'get-crypto-price' (current price) and 'get-market-analysis' (broader market).
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The description does not specify context like trend analysis vs point-in-time price, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get-market-analysisBInspect
Get detailed market analysis including top exchanges and volume distribution
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Cryptocurrency symbol (e.g., BTC, ETH) |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It only mentions 'detailed' analysis without disclosing behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or mutability. The description adds minimal value beyond the tool name.
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 one sentence long and front-loaded with the main purpose. It is efficient but could be slightly more informative without being verbose.
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 simplicity (one param, no output schema, no annotations), the description minimally covers purpose but lacks context on when to use or what to expect. It is adequate but not complete for an autonomous agent.
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 parameter 'symbol' is fully described in the schema with coverage at 100%. The description repeats 'e.g., BTC, ETH' which is already in the schema, adding no new semantic information. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 retrieves 'detailed market analysis' and specifies included data like 'top exchanges and volume distribution'. It distinguishes itself from siblings 'get-crypto-price' (price only) and 'get-historical-analysis' (historical data).
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 implies use for market analysis but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
3 tool updates
v1.0.0- First observed
get-crypto-price - First observed
get-historical-analysis - First observed
get-market-analysis
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get-crypto-price focuses on current price and 24-hour stats, get-historical-analysis covers historical price data with customizable timeframes, and get-market-analysis provides detailed market insights like top exchanges and volume distribution. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these tools.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with hyphens (get-crypto-price, get-historical-analysis, get-market-analysis). The naming is predictable and readable throughout the set.
With only 3 tools, the set feels thin for a server described as 'Crypto Price & Market Analysis.' While the tools cover key areas, more comprehensive analysis might require additional operations like trend prediction, exchange comparisons, or portfolio tracking, suggesting a borderline under-scoping.
The tools cover current price, historical analysis, and market analysis, which are core to the domain, but there are notable gaps. For example, there is no tool for comparing multiple cryptocurrencies, fetching real-time alerts, or performing predictive analytics, which could limit agent workflows in a full market analysis context.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
Unlock the power of real-time cryptocurrency data with our Crypto Price Insights MCP server.
MCP server with quote and live cryptocurrency price tools, local and cloud-deployed transports.
MCP server giving AI agents one-connection access to crypto & DeFi data: DeFi protocol TVL, stableco
Official CoinMarketCap MCP server: real-time crypto prices, market cap, rankings and exchange data.
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityFmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that provides access to CoinMarketCap's cryptocurrency data, enabling AI applications to retrieve cryptocurrency listings, quotes, and detailed information.36-
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that provides comprehensive cryptocurrency analysis using the CoinCap API. This server offers real-time price data, market analysis, and historical trends through an easy-to-use interface. Updated to use Coin Cap API v3368 npm1MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA server that provides real-time cryptocurrency data through the Model Context Protocol, allowing access to detailed exchange information and current cryptocurrency rates from the CoinCap API.13 npm1MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that provides cryptocurrency data tools and resources via an HTTP endpoint. It enables users to fetch real-time market data from Binance, track activity logs, and generate cryptocurrency executive summaries.-