What can you do with this server?

Crypto Tracker AI MCP lets you track and analyze cryptocurrency data through MCP tools. * Get current price, 24h change, and market cap for a symbol (e.g. BTC, ETH, SOL) with track_price * Compare multiple cryptocurrencies side by side with compare_cryptos * Calculate total portfolio value from holdings (e.g. BTC:0.5,ETH:10,SOL:100) with calculate_portfolio * Fetch top cryptocurrencies by market capitalisation with get_market_cap (configurable top_n, default 5) * All tools are read-only, stateless, idempotent, and safe to call repeatedly * Free tier supports 10 calls/day; Pro/Enterprise tiers offer higher limits with an API key * Installable via pip or Smitherly, and runs as a stdio MCP server with Claude Desktop or other MCP clients

de en es ja ko ru zh

Crypto Tracker AI MCP

by CSOAI-ORG

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Remote

Crypto Tracker Ai MCP

Track cryptocurrency prices, compare assets, and manage portfolios

Track cryptocurrency prices, compare assets, and manage portfolios. By MEOK AI Labs.

🚀 Quick Start

# Install via pip
pip install crypto_tracker_ai_mcp

# Or install via Smithery
npx -y @smithery/cli@latest install crypto-tracker-ai-mcp --client claude

Related MCP server: Desk3 MCP Server

✨ Features

MCP protocol compliant
Easy installation
Well-documented API
Production-ready
Active maintenance

📖 Documentation

🛡️ Compliance

This MCP server is built with EU AI Act compliance built-in:

✅ Article 9 — Risk Management System
✅ Article 13 — Transparency & Instructions for Use
✅ Article 15 — Bias Detection & Testing
✅ Article 26 — FRIA Support (where applicable)
✅ Article 50 — AI Content Watermarking (where applicable)

Need help getting compliant? Book a free 15-min diagnostic →

🏢 Enterprise

Need custom development, SLA guarantees, or white-label deployment?

Pro: $99/mo — Full MCP suite + EU AI Act tracking
Enterprise: $499/mo — Custom dev + SLA + Dedicated support

View Pricing → | Contact Sales →

🤝 Part of the MEOK Ecosystem

This server is part of the MEOK AI Labs ecosystem — 300+ MCP servers for sovereign AI governance.

Domain	Purpose
councilof.ai	EU AI Act compliance marketplace
safetyof.ai	AI safety & monitoring
meok.ai	Sovereign AI platform
cobolbridge.ai	Legacy modernization

📜 License

MIT © CSOAI-ORG

Pairs with MEOK Governance Suite

Build something that touches users? You need compliance. MEOK ships 38 governance MCPs that drop in alongside this tool — EU AI Act, DORA, NIS2, CRA, GDPR, ISO 42001, FDA SaMD, MDR, Basel, MiFID II, MiCA, COPPA, and more.

# One-shot install of the governance pack
npx meok-setup --pack governance

Free tier: 10 calls/day per MCP. Pro tier (£79/mo): unlimited + cryptographically signed compliance attestations your auditor verifies independently.

→ Full catalogue: councilof.ai/catalogue → MEOK AI Labs: meok.ai

💸 Try MEOK in 30 seconds — instant buy ladder

Tier	Price	What you get	Stripe
Smoke test	£1	Signed sample MCP-Hardening report + Article 50 PDF	https://buy.stripe.com/5kQ6oJ0xS3ce8sl7ew8k91j
Quick Kit	£9	EU AI Act Article 50 implementation guide (C2PA + EU-Icon)	https://buy.stripe.com/5kQ6oJ0xS3ce8sl7ew8k91j
Founder Call	£29	30-min 1-on-1 with the founder	https://buy.stripe.com/5kQ6oJ0xS3ce8sl7ew8k91j

Refundable. UK Stripe — VAT-clean. Builds on the 81-MCP MEOK fleet. Verify any signed report at https://meok.ai/verify.

Configuration

Add to your claude_desktop_config.json (Claude Desktop) or your MCP client config:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "crypto-tracker-ai-mcp": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": ["crypto-tracker-ai-mcp"]
    }
  }
}

Or: pip install crypto-tracker-ai-mcp then run the crypto-tracker-ai-mcp command (stdio transport).

Examples

Once configured, ask your assistant, for example:

"Use track_price to …"
"Use compare_cryptos to …"
"Use calculate_portfolio to …"

Available Tools

4 tools

calculate_portfolioA

Calculate total portfolio value from holdings. Provide as 'BTC:0.5,ETH:10,SOL:100' format.

Behavior: This tool is read-only and stateless — it produces analysis output without modifying any external systems, databases, or files. Safe to call repeatedly with identical inputs (idempotent). Free tier: 10/day rate limit. Pro tier: unlimited. No authentication required for basic usage.

When to use: Use this tool when you need structured analysis or classification of inputs against established frameworks or standards.

When NOT to use: Not suitable for real-time production decision-making without human review of results.

Args: holdings (str): The holdings to analyze or process. api_key (str): The api key to analyze or process.

Behavioral Transparency: - Side Effects: This tool is read-only and produces no side effects. It does not modify any external state, databases, or files. All output is computed in-memory and returned directly to the caller. - Authentication: No authentication required for basic usage. Pro/Enterprise tiers require a valid MEOK API key passed via the MEOK_API_KEY environment variable. - Rate Limits: Free tier: 10 calls/day. Pro tier: unlimited. Rate limit headers are included in responses (X-RateLimit-Remaining, X-RateLimit-Reset). - Error Handling: Returns structured error objects with 'error' key on failure. Never raises unhandled exceptions. Invalid inputs return descriptive validation errors. - Idempotency: Fully idempotent — calling with the same inputs always produces the same output. Safe to retry on timeout or transient failure. - Data Privacy: No input data is stored, logged, or transmitted to external services. All processing happens locally within the MCP server process.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`api_key`	No
`holdings`	Yes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explicitly states read-only, stateless, idempotent, no side effects, authentication details (no auth for basic usage), rate limits (free: 10/day, pro: unlimited), error handling (structured error objects), and data privacy (no storage/logging). Comprehensive.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is lengthy with redundant sections (e.g., 'Behavior' and 'Behavioral Transparency' overlap). The 'When to use' section is generic and adds little value. Could be more concise by merging repetitive parts, but front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

With 2 parameters, no input schema annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers all critical aspects: input format, behavior, authentication, rate limits, error handling, idempotency, and privacy. No gaps remain.

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 description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the holdings parameter format explicitly ('BTC:0.5,ETH:10,SOL:100') and notes that api_key is for authentication. While api_key explanation is minimal, the holdings format description adds significant value beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description explicitly states the tool calculates total portfolio value from holdings and provides the exact input format 'BTC:0.5,ETH:10,SOL:100'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like compare_cryptos, get_market_cap, and track_price by focusing on portfolio calculation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'When to use' section is generic ('structured analysis or classification of inputs against established frameworks or standards') and not specific to portfolio calculation. The 'When NOT to use' is vague. No explicit comparison to sibling tools. However, the description does clarify the required input format.

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

compare_cryptosA

Compare multiple cryptocurrencies side by side. Provide comma-separated symbols (e.g. 'BTC,ETH,SOL').

When to use: Use this tool when you need structured analysis or classification of inputs against established frameworks or standards.

When NOT to use: Not suitable for real-time production decision-making without human review of results.

Args: symbols (str): The symbols to analyze or process. api_key (str): The api key to analyze or process.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`api_key`	No
`symbols`	Yes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels. It comprehensively details side effects (read-only, no side effects), authentication (none for basic), rate limits (10/day free, unlimited pro), error handling (structured errors), idempotency (fully idempotent), and data privacy (no storage). This exceeds typical transparency requirements.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is well-structured with clear sections, but it contains redundancy between the initial 'Behavior' bullet and the later 'Behavioral Transparency' section, both stating read-only and stateless nature. The front-loaded main purpose is good, but some sentences could be merged or removed to improve conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 params, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, and behavioral traits thoroughly. The only gap is the weak parameter description, which hurts completeness. The output schema existence reduces the need to explain return values, but a brief note on what the comparison output contains would be beneficial.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. However, the 'Args' section merely repeats the parameter names and types ('symbols (str)', 'api_key (str)') without adding meaning, format constraints, or usage context. The earlier description does clarify symbols format (comma-separated), but that is not attributed to the parameter. Overall, this fails to add value beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the tool compares cryptocurrencies side by side, with a specific verb and resource. The example 'BTC,ETH,SOL' clarifies input format. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like calculate_portfolio or track_price, which would strengthen clarity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description includes 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, providing explicit guidance. However, the when-to-use text is generic ('structured analysis or classification of inputs against established frameworks') and not specific to comparing cryptocurrencies, reducing its practical value. No mention of alternative sibling tools.

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

get_market_capA

Get the top cryptocurrencies ranked by market capitalisation. Returns up to top_n results (default 5).

When to use: Use this tool when you need structured analysis or classification of inputs against established frameworks or standards.

When NOT to use: Not suitable for real-time production decision-making without human review of results.

Args: top_n (int): The top n to analyze or process. api_key (str): The api key to analyze or process.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`top_n`	No
`api_key`	No

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. Includes comprehensive details on side effects, authentication, rate limits, error handling, idempotency, and data privacy.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Well-structured but contains redundancy, especially between the initial statement and the long 'Behavioral Transparency' section. Generic parts could be removed to improve clarity.

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?

Despite the generic overlays, the description provides thorough operational context covering behavior, limits, and safety. Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description's 'Args' section uses vague phrasing like 'The top n to analyze or process' without clarifying how parameters relate to market cap. No explanation of api_key despite inconsistent references.

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?

The first sentence clearly states the tool retrieves top cryptocurrencies by market cap. However, subsequent generic language about 'structured analysis or classification' conflicts with the specific purpose and may confuse an AI agent.

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?

Includes explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, but the guidance is generic and not tailored to market cap retrieval. Does not differentiate from sibling tools.

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

track_priceA

Get the current price, 24h change, and market cap for a cryptocurrency symbol (e.g. BTC, ETH, SOL).

When to use: Use this tool when you need structured analysis or classification of inputs against established frameworks or standards.

When NOT to use: Not suitable for real-time production decision-making without human review of results.

Args: symbol (str): The symbol to analyze or process. api_key (str): The api key to analyze or process.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`symbol`	Yes
`api_key`	No

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description provides a dedicated 'Behavioral Transparency' section covering side effects, authentication, rate limits, error handling, idempotency, and data privacy in detail. The 'Behavior' section also confirms read-only and stateless nature.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is verbose and contains redundant sections (e.g., 'Behavior' and 'Behavioral Transparency' overlap). It could be streamlined, but the structure with clear sections is helpful. Some content (like the generic 'When to use') adds confusion.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite the lack of annotations and poor parameter semantics, the description covers most behavioral aspects comprehensively. The tool is simple, and the explanation of rate limits, authentication, and error handling is thorough. However, the symbol format could be clarified, and the 'When to use' section is misleading.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the 'Args' section provides only vague descriptions ('The symbol to analyze or process') without adding cryptocurrency-specific context like examples or format. The body text mentions authentication and rate limits, which hints at api_key usage, but the parameter descriptions themselves are insufficient.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The first sentence clearly states the tool retrieves current price, 24h change, and market cap for a cryptocurrency symbol, which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes from siblings like get_market_cap (market cap only) and compare_cryptos (comparison).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'When to use' section is generic and mismatched (structured analysis/classification), not specific to cryptocurrency price retrieval. There is no guidance comparing to siblings or when to use alternatives. The 'When NOT to use' is generic but acceptable.

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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

4 tool updatesv1.0.0Jul 12, 2026
- First observedcalculate_portfolio
- First observedcompare_cryptos
- First observedget_market_cap
- First observedtrack_price

Install Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: portfolio calculation, comparison, market cap ranking, and price tracking. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., calculate_portfolio, compare_cryptos). No deviations.

Tool Count4/5

With 4 tools, the set covers the core functionalities of a crypto tracker without being too sparse or excessive for the stated purpose.

Completeness3/5

The set covers basic tracking, comparison, and portfolio valuation but lacks historical data, news, or search, which are notable gaps for a comprehensive tracker.

Maintenance

ActivityActive

ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Need Help?

Related Servers

Related MCP Connectors

Crypto Prices Mcp
io.github.varvararatta
Unlock the power of real-time cryptocurrency data with our Crypto Price Insights MCP server.
Cryptocurrency Finance
2
crypto-defi-mcpOAuth
com.thenextgennexus
MCP server giving AI agents one-connection access to crypto & DeFi data: DeFi protocol TVL, stableco
Cryptocurrency Finance Blockchain
2
tachyo A
ai.tachyo
Crypto market intelligence, token rug-checks, and wallet verification in one MCP server.
Cryptocurrency Blockchain Finance
242
gainium-mcpOAuth
io.gainium
MCP server for Gainium — manage trading bots, deals, and balances via AI assistants
Cryptocurrency Finance
22

Related MCP Servers

crypto-projects-mcp
Cryptocurrency Blockchain
kukapay
A
license
B
quality
F
maintenance
An MCP server that provides cryptocurrency project data to AI agents
Updated a year ago (2025-05-11 12:57 UTC)
1
1
MIT
Desk3 MCP Serverofficial
Cryptocurrency Blockchain Web3 & Decentralized Tech
desk3
A
license
B
quality
D
maintenance
Cryptocurrency MCP Server! Free! This powerful tool is designed for blockchain enthusiasts, providing comprehensive, real-time cryptocurrency information at your fingertips. Whether you're an experienced trader or just starting your journey into the crypto world.
Updated 8 months ago (2026-01-10 06:54 UTC)
16
3
MIT
Blockchain AI MCP
Blockchain Cryptocurrency Web3 & Decentralized Tech
CSOAI-ORG
A
license
Not graded
quality
A
maintenance
Blockchain AI - MCP server providing AI-powered tools and automation by MEOK AI Labs
Updated 2 days ago (2026-09-04 12:36 UTC)
14
MIT
Price Tracker AI MCP
E-commerce & Retail Web Scraping AI & Machine Learning
CSOAI-ORG
A
license
Not graded
quality
B
maintenance
Price Tracker AI - MCP server providing AI-powered tools and automation by MEOK AI Labs
Updated 2 months ago (2026-06-26 05:40 UTC)
14
MIT

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/CSOAI-ORG/crypto-tracker-ai-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server

Crypto Tracker Ai MCP

🚀 Quick Start

✨ Features

📖 Documentation

🛡️ Compliance

🏢 Enterprise

🤝 Part of the MEOK Ecosystem

📜 License

Pairs with MEOK Governance Suite

💸 Try MEOK in 30 seconds — instant buy ladder

Configuration

Examples

Available Tools

Output Schema

Output Schema

Output Schema

Output Schema

Tool Schema Changelog

Maintenance

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Desk3 MCP Serverofficial

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API