Retrieve RunAPI pricing for Imagen 4 models and endpoints like remix_image or text_to_image. Use model and action parameters to look up cost details.
Look up RunAPI pricing for the imagen-4 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: -[
- "imagen-4-pro-remix-image",
- "imagen-4",
- "imagen-4-fast",
- "imagen-4-ultra"
-]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only lookup but never states whether pricing is live or static, whether authentication is required, or how pricing is returned (per call, per image, tiers). For a zero-annotation tool 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 zero filler and the resource scope up front. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than maximally concise.
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?
With no output schema, the description should explain what a pricing result looks like (units, currency, granularity), and it does not. It also omits auth and freshness behavior, leaving an agent unable to predict the response from the definition alone.
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 fully documented with defaults and an enum. The phrase 'imagen-4 model line' loosely echoes the model default but adds no syntax, allowed values, or interaction detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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?
States a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('RunAPI pricing') scoped to the imagen-4 model line, which distinguishes it from the login/remix_image/text_to_image/get_task siblings by domain. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with any sibling, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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 names no alternatives. An agent can infer this is a pre-flight lookup before remix_image/text_to_image, but nothing in the text says so or states when it should not be called.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.