Get a video's current status and result. status is one of queued | processing | completed | failed | preview. When completed, video_url is the MP4. When failed, credits are refunded and error explains why. Cheap; prefer wait_for_video for polling instead of calling this in a tight loop.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The video id from a create call. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: status values, video_url meaning, refund and error on failure, and cost nature (cheap). This is comprehensive for a read tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, front-loads the purpose, and each sentence adds non-redundant value. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the main return fields (status, video_url, error) but does not mention other possible response fields (e.g., metadata). However, for a simple status check this is likely sufficient. It references a sibling tool for polling, enhancing completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is only one parameter (id) and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds minimal context (the id comes from a create call), which is helpful but not significantly beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a video's status and result, listing possible status values and what each implies (video_url for completed, error for failed). It distinguishes from sibling wait_for_video by explicitly recommending it for polling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: it is cheap and should not be called in a tight loop; instead prefer wait_for_video for polling. This clarifies when and when not to use the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose. There is no overlap between tools like check_account and check_configuration, or between the two create video modes. All list tools target different entities, and the remaining tools serve unique roles (estimate credits, get video, wait for video, render preview).
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, such as check_account, create_auto_video, list_models. This makes it easy to predict tool names and understand their purpose.
With 13 tools, the number is well-scoped for a video generation API. It covers setup, account management, creation (two modes), credit estimation, retrieval, listing of various resources, and video waiting. No tool feels redundant or missing.
The tool surface covers the core workflow well: configuration check, account info, video creation (both auto and manual), credit estimation, retrieval, and listing. However, there are no tools for updating or deleting videos, nor for managing resources beyond listing (e.g., creating avatars or brand kits). These are minor gaps.
