Skip to main content
Glama

AgentIQ

by io.github.chrisgu

request_platform_demand

[Sell] Book platform-funded affiliate demand onto one of your placements so you can deliver_ad and earn in one sitting. Picks an affiliate-backed brand creative under maxRateCredits. Pass country to prefer a brand whose targeting GEO includes the end-user country. Requires Affiliate Demand wallet credits (platform buy_credits). Idempotent if an active campaign already exists. On empty platform demand wallet, see publisher docs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
geoNoAlias for country (ISO-3166-1 alpha-2).
countryNoEnd-user ISO-3166-1 alpha-2 — filters brand pick to matching targeting GEO. Alias: geo.
brandSlugNoOptional brand slug from search_affiliate_offers / GET /api/public/brands.
placementIdYesYour placement id from list_placement.
budgetCreditsNoOptional escrow budget (default ~50 or 2x placement rate). Charged to the platform demand wallet.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses idempotency, prerequisites (wallet credits), and country preference behavior. However, it does not explain side effects (e.g., credit deduction, campaign creation details) or error states beyond referencing docs for empty wallet.

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?

The description is relatively concise (6 sentences) and front-loaded with the core action and category tag. Every sentence adds value, though some phrasing (e.g., 'so you can deliver_ad and earn in one sitting') could be slightly more efficient without losing meaning.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose, prerequisites, and idempotency but omits what the tool returns (e.g., campaign ID) and how it fits into the broader workflow beyond its link to deliver_ad. This leaves moderate gaps for an agent to know expected outcome.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a usage hint for the country parameter ('prefer a brand whose targeting GEO includes the end-user country') but otherwise repeats schema content for budgetCredits and brandSlug. No significant new meaning beyond 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 clearly states the verb 'Book' and the resource 'platform-funded affiliate demand onto one of your placements'. It ties directly to sibling tool 'deliver_ad', distinguishing its role as a prerequisite step. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 implies usage context (before deliver_ad, requires wallet credits) but does not explicitly tell when to use this tool versus alternatives like buy_campaign or search_affiliate_offers. No exclusion criteria or comparative guidance is given.

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

All AgentIQ toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping or misleading purposes: buy_campaign and buy_placement are aliases of create_campaign, list_placement actually creates a placement, and get_attribution/get_campaign both provide campaign stats. The report_* tools are distinct but similarly named, increasing selection risk.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern, but there are notable deviations: buy_campaign/buy_placement use 'buy' instead of 'create', list_placement is a creator not a lister, and simple nouns like 'wallet' and 'whoami' break the convention.

Tool Count2/5

At 31 tools, the server feels heavy. Several tools are redundant aliases (buy_campaign, buy_placement) or could be consolidated (multiple report_* and list_* variants), making the surface unnecessarily large for the ad marketplace domain.

Completeness3/5

The core lifecycle is covered: campaign/placement creation, delivery, reporting, attribution, refunds, and cashouts. However, there are gaps like no update_campaign, no true list_placements, and no get_placement, leaving some workflows incomplete.

Resources