Skip to main content
Glama

APIClaw

by io.apiclaw.api
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

openapi_v2_product_traffic_terms_trend

Get product traffic-term trend

  1. Function

Per-keyword weekly traffic data for one ASIN; not ASIN-level aggregate traffic. Return weekly traffic-term timelines for an ASIN and up to 20 keywords, with a maximum 26-week range; the actual end date is resolvedDateTo. Results split impressions, positions, and ad activity by ORG/SP/SB/SBV/SPR; only status=ok items are charged.

  1. Use cases

Inspect when selected keywords gained or lost traffic for one ASIN and compare placements and ad activity. Use product-traffic-trend for the ASIN's overall weekly raw data.

Responses:

200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json

Example Response:

{
  "success": true,
  "meta": {
    "requestId": "Requestid",
    "timestamp": "Timestamp"
  }
}

Output Schema:

{
  "properties": {
    "success": {
      "type": "boolean",
      "title": "Success",
      "description": "Whether the request was successful",
      "default": true
    },
    "data": {
      "description": "Response data payload"
    },
    "error": {
      "description": "Error details if request failed"
    },
    "meta": {
      "description": "Metadata for API responses.\n\nCredit fields follow the ADR-0003 parallel-fields strategy (Option 3):\n- `credits_remaining` / `credits_consumed` (int): legacy fields, rounded\n  to whole credits, kept for zero-breaking-change to existing SDK clients.\n- `credits_remaining_exact` / `credits_consumed_exact` (float): new\n  precision-aware fields for clients that opt in to decimal credits.\n\nSee ADR-0003 decision 5 and the \u00a78 deprecation timeline.\n\nTODO(2026-11, ADR-0003 \u00a78 +6mo): mark `credits_remaining` /\n`credits_consumed` as `deprecated=True` in their Field() definitions\nand announce in customer changelog.\nTODO(2027-05, ADR-0003 \u00a78 +12mo): remove the legacy int fields via a\nmajor-version bump of the OpenAPI surface.",
      "properties": {
        "requestId": {
          "type": "string",
          "title": "Requestid",
          "description": "Unique request identifier"
        },
        "timestamp": {
          "type": "string",
          "title": "Timestamp",
          "description": "Response timestamp in ISO 8601 format"
        },
        "total": {
          "title": "Total",
          "description": "Total number of records"
        },
        "page": {
          "title": "Page",
          "description": "Current page number"
        },
        "pageSize": {
          "title": "Pagesize",
          "description": "Number of records per page"
        },
        "totalPages": {
          "title": "Totalpages",
          "description": "Total number of pages"
        },
        "creditsRemaining": {
          "title": "Creditsremaining",
          "description": "Remaining API credits (rounded to whole credits; see creditsRemainingExact for precise value)"
        },
        "creditsConsumed": {
          "title": "Creditsconsumed",
          "description": "Credits consumed by this request (rounded; see creditsConsumedExact for precise value)"
        },
        "creditsRemainingExact": {
          "title": "Creditsremainingexact",
          "description": "Remaining API credits, precise to 1 decimal place"
        },
        "creditsConsumedExact": {
          "title": "Creditsconsumedexact",
          "description": "Credits consumed by this request, precise to 1 decimal place"
        },
        "tokensUsage": {
          "description": "Provider token-usage block \u2014 populated on terminal video polls only, null on every non-video endpoint. See TokensUsage for its fields."
        }
      },
      "type": "object",
      "required": [
        "requestId",
        "timestamp"
      ],
      "title": "ResponseMeta"
    }
  },
  "type": "object",
  "required": [
    "meta"
  ],
  "title": "OpenApiResponse[ProductTrafficTermsTimelineData]",
  "examples": []
}

422: Validation Error Content-Type: application/json

Example Response:

{
  "detail": [
    {
      "loc": [],
      "msg": "Message",
      "type": "Error Type",
      "ctx": {}
    }
  ]
}

Output Schema:

{
  "properties": {
    "detail": {
      "items": {
        "properties": {
          "loc": {
            "items": {},
            "type": "array",
            "title": "Location"
          },
          "msg": {
            "type": "string",
            "title": "Message"
          },
          "type": {
            "type": "string",
            "title": "Error Type"
          },
          "input": {
            "title": "Input"
          },
          "ctx": {
            "type": "object",
            "title": "Context"
          }
        },
        "type": "object",
        "required": [
          "loc",
          "msg",
          "type"
        ],
        "title": "ValidationError"
      },
      "type": "array",
      "title": "Detail"
    }
  },
  "type": "object",
  "title": "HTTPValidationError"
}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
asinYesAmazon Standard Identification Number (10-character alphanumeric).
dateToYesEnd date (YYYY-MM-DD); on or after `dateFrom`, with a maximum 26-week range. Actual range is `resolvedDateFrom` through `resolvedDateTo`.
keywordNoExact keyword to query. Mutually exclusive with `keywords`. Must equal `LOWER(TRIM(value))`; uppercase letters and surrounding whitespace are rejected.
dateFromYesStart date (YYYY-MM-DD); maximum 26 weeks.
keywordsNoKeywords to query for the same ASIN in batch, up to 20. Mutually exclusive with `keyword`. Must equal `LOWER(TRIM(value))`; uppercase letters and surrounding whitespace are rejected. Duplicate keywords are rejected.
granularityNoData period granularity. Only `week` is currently supported.week
marketplaceNoAmazon marketplace code. Only 'US' is currently supported.US

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it warns that results are not ASIN-level aggregate, notes the effective date boundary via resolvedDateTo, states placement breakdown (ORG/SP/SB/SBV/SPR), and flags that only status=ok items are charged. It does not cover auth, rate-limit, or error-behavior details, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is organized into short labeled sections; every sentence carries scoping, use-case, or billing information. It is front-loaded with the core function and avoids redundancy with the schema.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and a mostly untyped data payload, the description covers invocation context, key constraints, output dimensions, and the sibling distinction. It lacks a detailed list of response value fields, but the stated 'weekly traffic-term timelines... split impressions, positions, and ad activity' gives enough shape for correct use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters including exact keyword lower/trim rules and the keyword/keywords mutual exclusion. The description adds the 'up to 20 keywords' scope and 26-week cap, but these largely restate schema constraints, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a clear verb-resource pair ('Get product traffic-term trend') and then specifies the exact granularity: per-keyword weekly traffic for one ASIN, not ASIN-level aggregate. The distinction from sibling openapi_v2_product_traffic_trend is stated, so an agent can disambiguate without inspecting schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

A dedicated 'Use cases' section explains when to call the tool: inspect when selected keywords gained or lost traffic for one ASIN and compare placements and ad activity. It also explicitly routes the user to product-traffic-trend when the ASIN's overall weekly raw data is needed, which is a clear when-not/alternative instruction.

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

All APIClaw 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