Vidu API by ShengShu Technology

# Fix list: Vidu API

From Anchor Terminal's listing at https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/vidu, the October 2026 research run, assessed 1 October 2026. Grade E, 40.4 out of 100.

This is everything the published grade says the listing lacks, the biggest possible gain to the total first. It comes from the reason given for each score, the checklist each category was scored against (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist), the provenance checks, the deductions, what we couldn't check and what the review panel asked for. A fix counts at the next check, once it's public.

For a coding agent working on Vidu API: work through the items below in the product, its docs and its public pages. Each category gives the reason for its score, with the points each checklist item earned, and the checklist itself, so the gap is the items that earned less than their points. Change the product, not the wording, and keep a note of what you changed and where it's published.

## 1. Reliability, 35 out of 100, up to 13 more on the total

Why it scored 35: No status page found (0). No incident history to read (5). Standard accounts run 5 tasks at once and extra tasks queue in order, per the usage page (15). Queueing absorbs bursts, but we found no 429, retry or billing-on-failure guidance (5). No SLA (0). Q3 Pro and Q3 Turbo carry no preview label (10).

The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-reliability):

Hosted APIs, MCP servers, models and platforms.

- 20, a public status page with component history (Statuspage, Instatus, BetterStack or the vendor's own).
- 0 to 30, the incident record for the last 90 days on that page. 30 for a clean record or trivial incidents only, 20 for minor incidents only, 10 for one major outage (an hour or more of a core API down, or errors across the board), 0 for several. 5 when there's no history we could read, and the note says so.
- 15, rate limits documented with numbers.
- 15, documented 429 or overload handling (Retry-After, backoff guidance), and idempotency keys or safe-retry guidance where writes are involved.
- 10, an SLA published for any paid tier.
- 10, the surface agents use is generally available, not beta or preview.

Local packages, SDKs, frameworks and stdio MCP servers.

- 20, installs from an official package with supported runtimes stated.
- 25, a public CI and test suite, passing on the default branch.
- 0 to 25, open crash or regression issues relative to activity (25 for few and handled, 0 for many, old and unanswered).
- 15, semver discipline and breaking changes called out in a changelog.
- 15, version 1.0 or later, or declared stable.

Protocols are read from their reference implementations, the public facilitators or servers, spec stability and test vectors.

## 2. Security & auth, 28 out of 100, up to 12.6 more on the total

Why it scored 28: Model reading of the checklist (credential, training, retention, operator visibility, programme). One API key sent as `Authorization: Token`, no scopes found (20). The terms (effective 23 January 2025) let ShengShu examine, record, copy and use inputs and outputs for operational and other purposes, and don't rule out training (0). No retention period or deletion call found (0). Task list for per-task visibility, no audit log (8). No security.txt, bug bounty or certification found (0).

The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-security):

- 0 to 30, the credential model. 30 for OAuth 2.1 with scopes, or scoped and revocable keys with rotation. 20 for plain revocable API keys. 10 for one all-powerful key. 10 off when a secret can travel in a URL query string as a documented option.
- 0 to 20, read-only or least-privilege modes, and confirmation or approval for destructive actions.
- 0 to 15, prompt-injection posture where the tool returns untrusted content (documented mitigations or guidance). A tool that returns no untrusted content gets 10.
- 0 to 15, audit logs or per-call visibility for the operator.
- 0 to 20, a security programme. security.txt or a disclosure policy, a bug bounty, SOC 2 or ISO 27001, advisories handled in public.

Models are read for retention, whether API data trains models (and whether that's off by default), zero-retention options and certifications. Frameworks for telemetry defaults, approval hooks, guardrails and sandboxing.

## 3. Payments & pricing, 20 out of 100, up to 10 more on the total

Why it scored 20: No x402, MPP or L402 (0). Credit prices per second are published at $0.005 a credit, Q3 Turbo at 7 to 13 credits a second, with off-peak at about half (20). No free credits published (0). A person signs up and buys credits (0).

The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-payments):

The published rubric, also on the [x402 page](https://www.anchorterminal.com/x402/).

- 40, a machine payment protocol (x402, MPP or L402) on the tool's own endpoints. 10 to 30 when it covers only some endpoints or only goes through a third party, and the note says which.
- 20, per-call or per-unit pricing published without a login. 10 for public plan-only pricing, 0 for "contact sales" or prices behind a login.
- 20, a free tier or trial that doesn't need a card.
- 20, autonomous onboarding, meaning an agent can get access without a person signing up in a browser (keyless use, x402, a programmatic key API).

Payment platforms and agent wallets rarely charge for their own API over a machine protocol, so the first line has steps for them, and the highest one that applies counts. 40 when x402, MPP or L402 runs on all their own endpoints, 30 when it runs on part of their own API, 25 when their merchants can accept one, 20 for running a facilitator, 15 for paying as a buyer, and 0 when the only protocol is their own. Merchant acceptance sits above a facilitator because the platform's own customers can charge agents through it, while a facilitator settles for sellers who wire up the protocol themselves. The counter-argument (a facilitator does more for the protocol as a whole) has a point. Each note says which step applied.

Open-source software you run yourself is scored on its hosted or paid option if it has one. A free, self-hosted package with nothing to buy gets 20, 20 and 20 for the last three lines, and 0 to 40 for the first only if it ships a payment protocol.

## 4. Schema & documentation, 48 out of 100, up to 8.5 more on the total

Why it scored 48: No OpenAPI file (0). No llms.txt or Markdown copies, though the HTML reference pages render without a browser (0). The image-to-video reference says what each model family is for (Q3 for synced audio and storyboards, Q2 for speed and quality, Q1 for clarity) (15). Typed parameters with model lists, per-model duration ranges (1 to 16 seconds on Q3), resolution options and defaults, though one `model` field carries nine values whose valid durations differ (13). We found no error-code reference, and examples rest on the listing's check (5). A dated update log, latest entry 15 September 2026 (15).

The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-schema):

APIs and MCP servers.

- 25, a machine-readable contract (a public OpenAPI file or similar; for MCP, typed JSON Schema inputs on every tool).
- 10, llms.txt or Markdown docs served for agents.
- 0 to 20, descriptions that say what a tool is for, when to use it and when not to, read from the tool definitions in the source or the API reference.
- 0 to 15, typed inputs with enums, constraints and required fields, and no free-form JSON blobs.
- 0 to 15, examples and documented error responses.
- 15, versioning and a public changelog.

Models are read from the API reference, the OpenAPI file, llms.txt, the structured-output and tool-use docs and the model cards. Frameworks from docs a model can follow, typed interfaces, examples and the API reference.

## 5. Agent ergonomics, 55 out of 100, up to 7.3 more on the total

Why it scored 55: Small task responses and a `callback_url` that removes polling (25). Resolution, duration and off-peak mode set output and cost, and there are task list and cancel endpoints (20). Task states run created, queueing, processing, success or failed, but we found no error-code reference (5). No idempotency key or safe-retry guidance found (0). Only `model` and `images` are required on image-to-video and the rest have defaults. No official SDK, and the `Token` scheme differs from the usual Bearer (5).

The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-ergonomics):

- 0 to 25, context cost. For MCP, the number and size of the tool definitions (25 for ten or fewer compact tools, 15 for 11 to 30, 5 for more than 30, plus up to 10 back for toolsets, dynamic loading or read-only subsets). For APIs, whether responses can be sized (field selection, limits, summaries).
- 20, pagination, filtering and output-size controls.
- 20, actionable, documented error responses, codes and messages an agent can recover from.
- 20, idempotency or safe retries, and for MCP the `readOnlyHint` and `destructiveHint` annotations.
- 15, sensible defaults, few required parameters, and official SDKs in at least two languages.

Models are read for tool use, structured output, prompt caching, context length, batch and SDKs. Frameworks for how much code and how many defaults a tool-calling agent with MCP needs.

## 6. Transparency & trust, 49 out of 100, up to 4.5 more on the total

Made of editorial 17, provenance 80.

Why it scored 49: Closed models under terms with ShengShu AI HK Limited and Hong Kong law. The terms don't restrict commercial use and forbid removing the AI-generated label, but don't say who owns the output (12). The terms let ShengShu record and use inputs and outputs for operational and other purposes, with no retention periods, and we didn't read the privacy policy against them (5). No deprecation policy (0). No subprocessor list or data locations found (0).

The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-transparency):

- 0 to 30, source availability and licence clarity. 30 for open source under an OSI licence, 15 for closed with clear terms, 0 for unclear terms.
- 0 to 30, data handling and retention statements that agree with each other (privacy policy, DPA, retention periods, subprocessors).
- 0 to 20, a deprecation policy or notices with dates.
- 0 to 20, telemetry disclosed with an opt-out (local software), or subprocessors and data locations disclosed (hosted).

The other half of Transparency and trust is the provenance score, computed from checked facts (below). The category score is the mean of the two.

Provenance checks not met in full (half of this category, computed from checked facts):

- Status page: not found (0 of 10)
- security.txt: not found (0 of 10)

## 7. Maintenance & community, 57 out of 100, up to 3.8 more on the total

Why it scored 57: Model reading. The update log's latest entry, on 15 September 2026, adds the S2-Avatar real-time interactive model and the S2-Editing real-time editing model. viduq3-mix and other reference models arrived on 13 April (30). Q1 and Q2 stay callable, no removals found, no policy (10). Dated update page and support by email (12). No official SDK. A hosted MCP server is live, but the stdio package was last released on 24 June 2025 (5). The MCP repository has 5 stars and no recent release (0).

The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-maintenance):

- 0 to 30, time since the last release, or the last published model or API change for a closed service. 30 within 30 days, 20 within 90, 10 within 180, 0 older.
- 20, at least three releases or dated changelog entries in the last 90 days.
- 0 to 25, responsiveness. Issues and pull requests answered on GitHub (the open issues and how recent the replies are). For closed services, a public changelog and a support or community channel that answers, 0 to 15.
- 15, presence in the official MCP registry under a verified namespace (MCP servers), or current official SDKs (APIs and models).
- 10, package health, current dependencies and CI.

Models are read for deprecation notice periods and model churn rather than release counts.

## What we couldn't check

What we couldn't read counted as absent. Publishing it on a page a plain HTTP fetch can read (not only in a browser) lets the next check count it.

- We couldn't load Vidu's usage page or pricing in this run, so the concurrency and price notes rest on the listing's check of 30 September 2026
- Whether the Q3 ad and drama reference models that Alibaba Model Studio added on 14 September 2026 are on Vidu's own API
- Who owns Vidu output, and whether the operational use of inputs in the terms includes training

## Weaknesses

- No llms.txt, OpenAPI file or error-code reference
- No status page, SLA or official SDK
- Terms let ShengShu record and use inputs and outputs for operational and other purposes, and don't name the output's owner
- stdio MCP package last released on 2025-06-24
- 5 concurrent tasks on the standard tier

## What costs an agent a turn today

The notes we give agents before they call it. Each one is a workaround an agent shouldn't need.

- Send `Authorization: Token $VIDU_API_KEY`. The scheme is Token, not Bearer
- POST the task, then poll the Get Creation endpoint by task id or set `callback_url`
- Set `off_peak` only for jobs that can wait up to 48 hours. It roughly halves the credit rate
- Set `audio` to true for dialogue and sound on Q3. It's off by default
- Keep the AI-generated label on outputs. The terms forbid removing it

## What the review panel asked for

- Error-code reference
- Status page
- State failed-task billing

## When it's done

Send what changed and where it's published as a dispute (https://www.anchorterminal.com/builders/#disputes, or `POST https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/contact` with `"kind": "dispute"`). Disputes are answered in public, and the listing is checked again by the same checklist. Paying for an audit or a listing claim changes nothing here.