Look up RunAPI pricing for Qwen 2 models and endpoints, such as text-to-image and image editing, to check costs before running generation or editing tasks.
Look up RunAPI pricing for the qwen-2 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: -[
- "qwen-2-edit-image",
- "qwen-2-text-to-image"
-]v0.1.7Input schema / properties / action / enumPrevious value: -[
- "edit_image",
- "remix_image",
- "text_to_image"
-]New value: +[
+ "edit_image",
+ "text_to_image"
+]Input schema / properties / model / enumPrevious value: -[
- "qwen-2-edit-image",
- "qwen-2-remix-image",
- "qwen-2-text-to-image"
-]New value: +[
+ "qwen-2-edit-image",
+ "qwen-2-text-to-image"
+]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, and it does not discharge it. It never says whether pricing is per-token, per-image, or per-request, what currency or unit applies, whether the values are live or cached, or whether authentication is required — all material for a pricing lookup.
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 padding, and the verb-resource pairing arrives immediately. It is arguably too terse given the gaps elsewhere, but there is no wasted text.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description must cover the response shape, and it does not say what the pricing result contains. For a tool whose entire value is the returned pricing unit, omitting that leaves the definition inadequate.
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 the 'model' slug and the 'action' enum are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds essentially nothing about parameter behavior and arguably narrows the model scope to qwen-2 in a way the open slug parameter does not imply.
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') with a stated scope ('qwen-2 model line'). It is not confused with any sibling (login, edit_image, text_to_image, get_task), but the scope wording is slightly at odds with the schema, which accepts an arbitrary model slug.
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?
No statement of when to call this versus alternatives, and no prerequisites. An agent can infer it should be checked before invoking edit_image or text_to_image, but the description never says so, and the siblings give no pricing counterpart to route against.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.