Skip to main content
Glama

iGaming Tools — independent slot, provider & regulator reference data

Get demand cut

get_demand_cut
Read-only

Demand cut: which slots are searched in a given market, ranked by 12-month volume.

country: REQUIRED ISO-2 code (e.g. 'BR'). Unlike the REST endpoint (where country
  is optional and omitting it returns the whole market map in one response), this
  MCP tool requires exactly one market per call. A missing country returns an
  error with a few example codes and a pointer to the full tracked-market list
  (/docs/, or meta.coverage.markets_tracked on REST).

IMPORTANT — read before trusting a number from this tool:
1. The metric (volume_12m) is a SUM over a trailing 12-month window, not the
   latest month's search volume. Ranking by "recent popularity" is exactly what
   this number is NOT — a slot with a huge spike two months ago and nothing since
   can still outrank one with steady recent demand.
2. Coverage is OUR CATALOGUE, not the market. This is demand for slots we track
   (currently effectively single-provider), not total search demand for iGaming
   content in that country. A number going up when we onboard a new provider is
   catalogue growth, not market growth.
3. Each underlying slot x country pair carries a pairs_at_frontier_pct signal on
   the REST endpoint (omitted here, see "What this tool omits" below): below 100%
   it means the freshest month is not fully collected yet for that pair, and the
   12-month sum is weighted toward older, complete months. Do not read a country
   with lower coverage as having genuinely lower demand than one with full coverage.

by: cut axis — 'slot' (default), 'country', 'provider', 'theme', 'feature',
  'mechanic', 'game_category'. 'theme'/'feature' are overlapping (a slot has many
  of each, so per-group sums exceed the country total); the rest are not.
ordering: '-volume_12m' (default, highest demand first) or 'volume_12m'.
Catalogue filters (same whitelist as search_slots, all optional, all AND'ed):
  volatility, mechanic, jackpot_type, has_bonus_buy, provider, theme, feature,
  search, released_after / released_before (YYYY-MM-DD), rtp_min / rtp_max,
  game_category.
cursor / page_size: pagination, same shape as search_slots.

What this tool omits (by design, not an oversight):
  coverage (providers[], slots_total, pairs_at_frontier_pct, markets_tracked) is
  NOT requested and NOT present in this tool's response. Call the REST endpoint
  directly (with a token) for the coverage block.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
byNo
themeNo
cursorNo
searchNo
countryYes
featureNo
rtp_maxNo
rtp_minNo
mechanicNo
orderingNo
providerNo
page_sizeNo
volatilityNo
jackpot_typeNo
game_categoryNo
has_bonus_buyNo
released_afterNo
released_beforeNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining the metric's trailing 12-month sum nature, coverage limitations (catalogue vs market), and omitted signals. It also details error handling for missing country and explicitly lists what the tool omits.

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 structured with a clear introductory sentence, bullet points for caveats, and organized parameter details. While verbose, every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with key information.

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?

Given the complexity (18 parameters, output schema exists), the description provides comprehensive context: purpose, caveats, parameter details, and explicit omissions. With an existing output schema, the return values need not be described.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining the required country parameter in detail, listing all possible 'by' values, and describing ordering. Grouped filters are referenced to search_slots, but individual filter parameters are not elaborated.

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 returns demand cut for slots in a market, ranked by 12-month volume. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_slot_demand or search_slots.

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 provides context when to use the tool and compares behavior to the REST endpoint, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools. The caveats are warnings, not usage guidelines.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources