Gemini 4 Argon via NextModel: 1M-token context; $2 / 1M tokens in / $10 / 1M tokens out per 1M tokens. Capabilities: streaming, tool, json.
這份候選名單適合什麼用途?: Agent models
Agent runs spit out a lot of tokens and burn money when tool loops go wrong. Before you wire one up, check tool calling, JSON reliability, context length, latency, and output price. Then set a budget so a bad loop cannot empty the account overnight.
來源依據: NextModel capability mapping and supported-parameter metadata when available. · 更新日期 2026-07-01
如何使用这份名单
如何使用这份名单 (Agent models)
- 对照任务选模型. 先看「Agent models」短名单是否覆盖你的真实任务,不要只比标价。
- 用同一批提示词试跑. 挑 2–3 个候选,用业务提示词对比质量与输出长度。
- 估算月费. 用价格页或成本计算器,按预计 token 量估算月度花费。
- 定兜底与预算. 定主模型、兜底模型,设项目预算后再接生产流量。
匹配分
推薦候選 agent models
先從候選名單開始,再以真實提示詞測試,並在接入正式環境路由前比較月度成本。
Claude Haiku 5.5 via NextModel: 1M-token context; Starting at $0.1 / 1M tokens in / $0.5 / 1M tokens out per 1M tokens. Capabilities: streaming, tool, json.
Claude Sonnet 5.5 via NextModel: 1M-token context; $2 / 1M tokens in / $10 / 1M tokens out per 1M tokens. Capabilities: streaming, tool, json.
GPT‑6 LunaNew
GPT‑6 Luna via NextModel: 1M-token context; Starting at $0.1 / 1M tokens in / $0.5 / 1M tokens out per 1M tokens. Capabilities: streaming, tool, json.
比較表
按價格、提供者、上下文、能力與來源比較這份候選名單。
當你在縮小正式環境候選名單、建立備援策略或比較模型經濟性時,可使用此視圖。
| Model | Provider | Input | Output | Context | Capabilities | Best for | Latency | Status | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gemini 4 Argongoogle/gemini-4-argon | $2 / 1M tokens | $10 / 1M tokens | 1M | StreamingTool callingJSON modeVision | image understanding, multimodal chat | 2974-10589ms | Catalog | Platform curated | |
| Claude Haiku 5.5anthropic/claude-haiku-5.5 | Anthropic | Starting at $0.1 / 1M tokens | $0.5 / 1M tokens | 1M | StreamingTool callingJSON modeVision | image understanding, multimodal chat | 1321-2017ms | Catalog | Platform curated |
| Claude Sonnet 5.5anthropic/claude-sonnet-5.5 | Anthropic | $2 / 1M tokens | $10 / 1M tokens | 1M | StreamingTool callingJSON modeVision | image understanding, multimodal chat | 1230-2392ms | Catalog | Platform curated |
| GPT‑6 Lunaopenai/gpt-6-luna | OpenAI | Starting at $0.1 / 1M tokens | $0.5 / 1M tokens | 1M | StreamingTool callingJSON modeVision | image understanding, multimodal chat | 1722-2681ms | Catalog | Platform curated |
| GPT‑6 Solopenai/gpt-6-sol | OpenAI | Starting at $2 / 1M tokens | $10 / 1M tokens | 1M | StreamingTool callingJSON modeVision | image understanding, multimodal chat | 1752-3715ms | Catalog | Platform curated |
| Claude Opus 5.5anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 | Anthropic | $4 / 1M tokens | $20 / 1M tokens | 1M | StreamingTool callingJSON modeVision | image understanding, multimodal chat | 1845-5119ms | Catalog | Platform curated |
| GPT-6 Astraopenai/gpt-6-astra | OpenAI | Starting at $10 / 1M tokens | $50 / 1M tokens | 1.1M | StreamingTool callingJSON modeVision | image understanding, multimodal chat | 2408-7945ms | Catalog | Platform curated |
| Claude Fable 5.1anthropic/claude-fable-5.1 | Anthropic | $10 / 1M tokens | $50 / 1M tokens | 1M | StreamingTool callingJSON modeVision | image understanding, multimodal chat | 3187-5152ms | Catalog | Platform curated |
常見問題
Agent models 常見問題
Which capabilities matter most for agent models?
Tool calling, structured JSON, enough context for the task, and instructions that stick. Everything else is secondary.
Why do agent workflows get expensive so fast?
They generate long traces: planning text, tool results stuffed back into context, and retries. Cap steps and log token use per run.
Should agents always use the strongest model?
No. Route planning or simple tool picks to cheaper models when quality allows, and reserve stronger models for hard steps.