AdCopilot

Google Ads: create price asset

create_price_asset

Creates a price asset that can be linked to campaigns or ad groups.

Price assets showcase your products or services with their prices.

Args:
    customer_id: The Google Ads customer ID (numbers only, no hyphens).
    price_type: The type of price. One of: BRANDS, EVENTS, LOCATIONS, NEIGHBORHOODS,
        PRODUCT_CATEGORIES, PRODUCT_TIERS, SERVICES, SERVICE_CATEGORIES, SERVICE_TIERS.
    price_offerings: List of price offerings (min 3, max 8), each with:
        - header: The offering name (max 25 characters).
        - description: Description of the offering (max 25 characters).
        - price_micros: Price in micros of currency_code (9990000 = 9.99).
        - currency_code: Optional ISO 4217 code; defaults to the
          account's currency.
        - unit: Price unit. One of: PER_HOUR, PER_DAY, PER_WEEK, PER_MONTH, PER_YEAR, NONE.
        - final_url: The landing page URL for this offering.
    language_code: Language code (e.g., "en"). Default: "en".
    price_qualifier: One of: NONE, FROM, UP_TO, AVERAGE. Default: "NONE".

Returns:
    Dictionary with the created asset resource name.

Tools revision: 5c9bea8f.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`price_type`	Yes
`customer_id`	Yes
`language_code`	No	en
`price_offerings`	Yes
`price_qualifier`	No	NONE

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description needn't restate them. It usefully adds hard constraints (3–8 offerings, 25-char limits) that predict validation failures, but says nothing about required permissions or what happens on quota/permission errors.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the action, then structured Args/Returns sections with no filler beyond the one explanatory line about what price assets are. The nested offering bullet list is efficient, though the "Returns" line is redundant given an output schema exists.

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?

For a creation tool with an output schema, the description covers the inputs, the required multi-element list, and the return value. The remaining gap is workflow context — that the created asset still needs a separate link call — which the description only gestures at.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so: every one of the 5 parameters is documented, including allowed enum values for price_type, price_qualifier and unit, the micros conversion example (9990000 = 9.99), defaults for currency_code, language_code and price_qualifier, and the nested offering field list. This is meaningfully more than the schema conveys.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Creates a price asset") and the second clarifies the concept, which distinguishes it from the many sibling asset creators (callout, sitelink, text, image) by subject matter. It does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 clause "can be linked to campaigns or ad groups" implies the follow-up step, but no explicit when-to-use rule or naming of the alternatives (link_asset_to_campaign, link_asset_to_ad_group) is given. An agent must infer that creation alone leaves the asset unattached.

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

All AdCopilot tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?