Check RunAPI pricing for Z Image models before generating images, so you can estimate text-to-image costs.
Look up RunAPI pricing for the z-image 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: -[
- "z-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. 'Look up' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not confirm that it is non-destructive, whether it requires authentication, whether it consumes quota, or how pricing data is returned.
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 filler. Every word contributes to stating the tool's purpose.
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 tool with full schema coverage, this is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally clarify the shape or currency of returned pricing data and the read-only nature, which 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 schema already documents the optional 'model' and 'action' parameters. The description adds only the scoping context of the z-image model line and does not explain defaults, enum semantics, or parameter interactions beyond what the schema provides.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('RunAPI pricing for the z-image model line'), which is distinct from the unrelated siblings login, text_to_image, and get_task. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, but the purpose is unambiguous and narrow enough that no confusion is likely.
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?
There is no statement about when to call this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist. The agent must infer that it should call check_pricing whenever it needs pricing information, with no guidance on prerequisites or relationship to text_to_image.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.