Look up RunAPI pricing for the Flux Kontext model line before text-to-image generation. Specify a model or endpoint to view applicable rates.
Look up RunAPI pricing for the flux-kontext model line.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | No | Model slug. Defaults to the line's primary model. | |
| action | No | Endpoint name. Defaults to the endpoint that offers the model. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / model / enumRemoved value: -[
- "flux-kontext-max",
- "flux-kontext-pro"
-]v0.1.2Input schema / properties / action / descriptionPrevious value: -"Endpoint name. Defaults to the line's primary endpoint."New value: +"Endpoint name. Defaults to the endpoint that offers the model."v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Look up' weakly implies a read-only operation, but the description says nothing about authentication, whether pricing data is live or cached, rate limits, or cost of calling. Significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It could be slightly more informative given its brevity, but nothing is redundant or padded.
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?
For a simple two-parameter, zero-required tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the resource but does not hint at the shape or units of the returned pricing, which would help since no output schema exists.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both 'model' and 'action' are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds the flux-kontext model line as a domain context but no syntax, defaults, or format detail 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?
States a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('RunAPI pricing') and scopes it to the flux-kontext model line. It is easily distinguished from siblings like text_to_image, get_task, and login, though the model-line scoping is slightly narrower than the free-form 'model' parameter implies.
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 purpose makes usage implied — an agent consults this when it needs pricing before calling text_to_image — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. No prerequisites or context of use are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.