Obtain a no-charge point quote for rendering all storyboards in an episode into videos, with estimated_points and quote_id for approval before actual spend.
报价:给某一集所有分镜批量出视频要多少点(与实际扣费同函数,较准)。返回 estimated_points、quote_id。零扣费。⚠️ 视频是大额花费,务必把点数清楚告诉用户并等其确认。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| episode_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.57Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses zero deduction ('零扣费'), the same calculation function as actual billing, returned fields (estimated_points, quote_id), and the important caution that video is a large expense requiring user confirmation. This covers the key behavioral traits for a safe quote tool.
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?
The description is compact and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, then return values, then the zero-cost guarantee, then the critical user-confirmation warning. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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 description is complete enough for a simple one-parameter quote tool with no output schema: it explains what the tool does, what it returns, that it does not charge, and how the agent should interact with the user after getting the estimate. Minor gaps like quote validity or failure cases are not critical for correct invocation.
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 0%, so the description should compensate for parameter semantics, but it only weakly refers to '某一集' without explicitly explaining episode_id, its source, or usage constraints. The schema itself provides the integer type and exclusiveMinimum, yet the description adds little beyond the property name.
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 clearly states a specific action ('quote') applied to a specific resource: batch video generation for all storyboards of one episode. It also distinguishes itself from sibling quote tools by scoping to '某一集所有分镜批量出视频' (all storyboards in an episode, batch video), which prevents confusion with quote_frames, quote_storyboards, or quote_shot_frame.
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 provides clear context: this tool estimates point costs before batch video generation, is accurate ('与实际扣费同函数'), and costs zero points. It also instructs the agent to surface the estimate and wait for user confirmation. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use alternatives, but the scope and purpose make the usage context unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.