Fetches current text-to-video capabilities and a conservative USD SKU cost estimate without generating video or charging, helping you validate pricing before submitting a job.
Fetch current capabilities and conservative USD SKU estimate. No generation or charge. Text-to-video only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description reinforces this with a no-charge, no-generation guarantee and a modality restriction ('text-to-video only'), which is real added context. It doesn't say whether the estimate is deterministic or how the 'conservative' bound is derived, which keeps it below a 5.
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?
Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the safety guarantee follows immediately after the purpose. Slight loss for the jargon-heavy 'conservative USD SKU estimate' phrasing that needs unpacking.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. But with five nested parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description should say at least which fields affect the estimate and what 'capabilities' returns.
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% and the nested VideoRequest exposes prompt, duration, resolution, aspect_ratio, and seed with no explanation anywhere. The description never mentions that duration/resolution drive the SKU estimate, so an agent gets no help mapping inputs to price.
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 names a specific action (fetch capabilities and a USD SKU estimate) and scopes it to text-to-video, which separates it from heygen_submit's generation role via 'No generation or charge.' 'Capabilities' remains vague, but the verb+resource pairing is clear enough to select the tool.
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 'No generation or charge' clause implies this is the pre-flight/dry-run option before heygen_submit, but the description never says 'use this before submitting' or names the sibling explicitly. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.