Look up RunAPI pricing for the Flux model line by model slug or action endpoint, so you can compare costs before running image generation tasks.
Look up RunAPI pricing for the flux 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-dev",
- "flux-pro",
- "flux-2-klein"
-]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" strongly implies a read-only, side-effect-free query, which is adequate for a simple pricing fetch, but it never explicitly states that nothing is mutated, whether auth or credits are required, or whether results are cached. Adding one clause about the read-only nature and output scope would close the gap.
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 the verb and scope leading, and no filler. It is efficiently sized, though it is on the thin side for a tool with two optional, default-bearing parameters.
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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but does not explain what the returned pricing data looks like or how the model/action defaults interact with the "flux model line" framing. An agent could still call it correctly, but the context is thin.
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 parameters (model, action) are already documented in the schema, including their defaults and the action enum. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb ("look up") and resource ("pricing for the flux model line"), so the agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not need sibling differentiation because no sibling (get_task, login, remix_image, text_to_image) performs pricing work. The only friction is that it scopes to the flux line while the schema implies a general model string.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated preconditions, and no mention of alternatives or how it relates to the action endpoints (remix_image, text_to_image) it prices. The agent must infer that this is a pre-flight cost check rather than something routed from the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.