Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

SEO and Keyword Data API

by com.duoleads.keywords
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Google Trends comparison (up to 5 keywords)

google_trends_compare
Read-onlyIdempotent

Google Trends comparison of up to 5 keywords: one relative 0-100 interest series for all of them (same scale), with each keyword's average and latest value; worldwide or one country, 7 days to 5 years, web, news or YouTube search, in one $0.045 call. Use when you need to compare demand or seasonality between terms. A live call takes up to about 30 s. Too little data gives found false (still charged). Bad input is free; upstream errors are not charged. Price: $0.045 per successful call, paid over x402 (USDC on Base); pass the payment in _meta["x402/payment"].

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "keywords": "<keywords>"
    },
    "name": "google_trends_compare"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoGoogle property: web (default), news or youtube.
keywordsYes1-5 terms to compare, e.g. ["running shoes", "trail running shoes"] (each 2-100 characters, no commas).
locationNoMarket: a country name ("United States") or ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code (us, gb, de; uk = gb). Omit for worldwide.
timeframeNoTime window: 7d, 30d, 90d, 12m or 5y (default 12m); the past_* names of /v1/trend work too.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Well beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses latency (~30 s), the failure mode where too little data yields found=false yet still bills, the free-bad-input and uncharged-upstream-error policies, and the exact price and x402 payment channel. Minor ambiguity remains around whether retrying a live call re-incurs the charge.

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 operation and output, then the selection cue, then operational caveats. It is dense but nearly every clause carries information; the only waste is the price being stated twice ("in one $0.045 call" and again in the closing price sentence).

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains what comes back (a single comparable 0-100 series plus average and latest per keyword), and it covers cost, latency and partial-data behavior. Only the retry/charge interaction and any result-size limits are left unstated.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter already carries a description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the ranges (up to 5 keywords, worldwide or one country, 7 days to 5 years, web/news/YouTube) but adds no syntax or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific operation (Google Trends comparison of up to 5 keywords) and spells out the output shape: one shared 0-100 relative interest series plus each keyword's average and latest value. That is enough to separate it from google_trends, google_trends_by_region and google_trends_related_queries by the multi-term, same-scale framing, even though no sibling is named outright.

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?

"Use when you need to compare demand or seasonality between terms" gives a clear selecting condition and implies the contrast with single-term trend lookups. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming an alternative for single-keyword or per-region needs.

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

All SEO and Keyword Data API toolsInspect
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