Look up RunAPI pricing for Vidu image-to-video and reference-to-video models. Specify a model slug or endpoint to retrieve current rates.
Look up RunAPI pricing for the vidu 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.
v0.1.0Does 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 say whether this requires authentication (a sibling named 'login' hints at an auth model that is never confirmed), whether results are cached or live, or whether any side effects occur. One sentence of pure intent leaves the agent without the operational context a zero-annotation tool needs.
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 short sentence with the purpose front-loaded and no filler or redundancy. It is arguably under-specified rather than bloated, which is penalized in other dimensions, but as written every word earns its place.
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 must explain the shape of the result, and it does not: an agent cannot tell whether pricing is per-request, per-second of video, per endpoint, or returned as a table. For a lookup tool whose entire value is the returned pricing data, this is a meaningful incompleteness.
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' are already documented with their defaults, making the schema the primary source of parameter meaning. The description adds only the enclosing context ('vidu model line'), which mildly clarifies the valid model space but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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 'vidu model line', which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from siblings like login, get_task, or image_to_video that perform entirely different jobs. It does not explicitly contrast with a sibling, but none of the listed siblings overlap in function, so differentiation is effectively achieved.
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 offers no when-to-use guidance: it never says to call this before invoking image_to_video/reference_to_video, nor whether it is a prerequisite, cacheable, or optional. There are no exclusions or named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the tool's role in a workflow entirely on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.