Retrieve RunAPI pricing for Hailuo models by model slug and action, covering image-to-video and text-to-video.
Look up RunAPI pricing for the hailuo 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.
v0.3.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / model / enumRemoved value: -[
- "hailuo-02-image-to-video-pro",
- "hailuo-02-image-to-video-standard",
- "hailuo-2.3-image-to-video-pro",
- "hailuo-2.3-image-to-video-standard",
- "hailuo-02-text-to-video-pro",
- "hailuo-02-text-to-video-standard"
-]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. 'Look up' weakly implies a read-only query, but there is no statement about auth requirements, whether the price data is static or real-time, caching, cost of the call, or what is returned. For a pricing tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful 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 no wasted words, appropriate in size for a simple lookup. It is arguably under-specified rather than bloated, so the structure is sound.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the sole source of behavioral and return-value context, and it omits both. An agent cannot tell what a pricing result looks like (currency, units, per-second vs per-call), how fresh it is, or what the hailuo scoping means for the optional parameters.
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 with their defaults and enum values. The description adds the scoping hint that this is for the hailuo line, but no detail on slug format or how the two parameters interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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') scoped to a named model line ('hailuo'), which no sibling offers. An agent can distinguish it from login, image_to_video, text_to_video, and get_task without opening the schema. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with siblings, but none are close enough to require it.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no conditions under which this tool should be preferred or avoided. The only inference an agent can draw is that pricing is checked before invoking a video endpoint, which is never stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.