Look up RunAPI pricing for Veo 3.1 models to compare text-to-video, extend, and upscale costs before creating tasks.
Look up RunAPI pricing for the veo-3-1 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: -[
- "veo-3.1",
- "veo-3.1-fast",
- "veo-3.1-lite"
-]v0.1.9Input schema / properties / model / enumPrevious value: -[
- "veo-3.1",
- "veo-3.1-fast"
-]New value: +[
+ "veo-3.1",
+ "veo-3.1-fast",
+ "veo-3.1-lite"
+]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, yet it reveals nothing about behavior: no indication that this is a read-only/cost-free lookup, no auth or rate-limit notes, and no statement about whether pricing is live or cached. One sentence that only restates the scope leaves the agent guessing.
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. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, but as a conciseness measure it is clean and efficient.
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 simple two-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema, it never indicates what pricing information is returned (per-endpoint cost, credit units, etc.), which is the main thing an agent would want to know.
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 'model' and 'action' (including its enum) are already documented in the schema, and this tool takes no required parameters. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.
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 veo-3-1 model line, which is enough to distinguish it from the action siblings (upscale_video, extend_video, text_to_video). It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the resource type alone makes the distinction obvious.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative tools, and no stated prerequisites. The agent must infer that pricing should be checked before invoking a paid video action; nothing in the text says so.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.