Look up RunAPI pricing for the runway-aleph model line, optionally by model slug or endpoint, to see costs before creating video edits.
Look up RunAPI pricing for the runway-aleph 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 / properties / action / enumRemoved value: -[
- "edit_video"
-]v0.2.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / model / enumRemoved value: -[
- "runway-aleph"
-]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 disclosure burden, and it says nothing about read-only safety, auth requirements, rate limits, or freshness of the pricing data. 'Look up' weakly implies a read operation, but nothing confirms it or describes the returned pricing.
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 waste; the resource and its scope arrive immediately.
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?
The tool is simple (two optional params, no nesting) and the schema is fully documented, so little is required. However, with no output schema the description should at least sketch what pricing information is returned (units, currency, per-call vs per-token), and it does not.
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 the model slug and endpoint name are already documented as optional with sensible defaults. The description adds no syntax, format, or default-behavior detail 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?
States a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('RunAPI pricing') scoped to the runway-aleph model line. The unrelated siblings (get_task, login) make disambiguation unnecessary, so the only missing element is a positive statement of what it is not.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it needs pricing for the runway-aleph line. There is no explicit cue about when pricing is relevant, whether it can be called without auth, or what to do for other model lines.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.