1M-Token Model Context
Meta documents a 1,048,576-token context window for combining source text, instructions, and conversation history. Input and generated output share that budget, so leave room for the answer.
curl --request POST "https://gptproto.com/v1/chat/completions" \
--header "Authorization: Bearer $GPTPROTO_API_KEY" \
--header "Content-Type: application/json" \
--data '{
"model": "muse-spark-1.3",
"messages": [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Hello"
}
]
}'聊天、程式開發代理與文件處理。以每 1M Token 計價 — 輸入、快取輸入與輸出分開計費。GPTProto 比官方費率低 20%。
| 場景 | Meta 牌價 | OpenRouter | GPTProto | 每月節省 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personal10M tokens / 月(4.8M 快取) | $13.22 | $13.95 | $10.58 | −$2.64≈ $31.73 / 年 |
| Team100M tokens / 月(48M 快取) | $132.20 | $139.47 | $105.76 | −$26.44≈ $317.28 / 年 |
| Business500M tokens / 月(240M 快取) | $661.00 | $697.35 | $528.80 | −$132.20≈ $1586.40 / 年 |
Build text-to-text applications that turn requirements, source code, and long conversations into useful answers and next actions. Muse Spark 1.3 is designed for work that involves multiple steps: investigating a bug, comparing evidence, revising a plan, and continuing after a tool returns new information.
1M-Token Model Context
Meta documents a 1,048,576-token context window for combining source text, instructions, and conversation history. Input and generated output share that budget, so leave room for the answer.
Coding Across Multiple Steps
Use the model in an agent that inspects code, proposes changes, runs tests, and revises a fix. Your application supplies the file access and execution tools.
Adjustable Reasoning Effort
Meta’s Standard model supports six reasoning levels, from minimal to max. Match effort to task difficulty; additional reasoning consumes output tokens and can increase response time.
Tool Calls and Structured Results
The model supports function calling and schema-based JSON output. Build workflows that retrieve information, classify requests, or return fields your application can process, using the options supported by your API route.
Muse Spark 1.3 is Meta’s reasoning model for coding and agentic work, released on September 2, 2026. Its training emphasizes longer tasks, following detailed instructions, and using intermediate results to decide what to do next. This page covers text input and text output for applications built through GPTProto.
| Model detail | What it means for your application |
|---|---|
| Developer | Meta |
| Official Standard model ID | muse-spark-1.3 |
| Main-page task | Text to text |
| Model context window | 1,048,576 tokens, shared by input and output |
| Response types | Text, code, and structured text such as JSON |
| Agent capabilities | Tool calling and iterative reasoning within a connected application |
These are model-level specifications. Use GPTProto’s API Usage example for the exact request model ID, endpoint, and options available through your account.
Coding assistants and maintenance. Give an assistant a bug report, relevant source files, and failing test output. Ask it to trace the cause, propose a patch, and explain the change. With execution tools connected, it can use test results to revise its work before presenting a final diff.
Research and business workflows. Turn supplied customer feedback, product requirements, or campaign notes into an evidence-backed brief. Ask for a recommendation, supporting excerpts, and unresolved questions. For workflows that also retrieve records or update systems, connect the relevant tools through your agent application.
Text processing inside apps. Extract fields from support requests, classify incoming messages, or turn a long conversation into a handoff record. Define the output fields before running the task, then validate the returned data before passing it to another system.
In Meta’s internal engineering comparisons, version 1.3 used approximately 20% fewer tool calls and 25% fewer tokens than 1.2. Those reported results suggest a useful evaluation target: measure the total cost of a completed task, including retries. They are not a guaranteed saving for every workload.
The Contributor variant changes the conditions under which you use the model. Meta offers lower token prices in exchange for permission to use submitted content and responses for training. It also limits the available reasoning levels.
| Difference on Meta Model API | Standard | Contributor |
|---|---|---|
| Official model ID | muse-spark-1.3 |
muse-spark-1.3-contributor |
| Content used to train Meta models | No, under Meta’s Standard-mode policy | May be used for training |
| Maximum reasoning effort | max |
xhigh; max is unavailable |
| Pricing arrangement | Standard rates | Discounted rates with the data-use trade-off |
Source: Meta’s pricing modes and reasoning documentation. This describes Meta’s variants; it does not establish a separate Contributor offering or a data-retention promise on GPTProto. Check the selected route’s terms when evaluating sensitive workloads.
A large context window helps keep relevant material together, but an agent still needs conversation management. Preserve the task’s requirements and recent results; summarize older steps when their exact wording is unnecessary. For code review, keep the original code available where precise details matter.
Reasoning tokens count toward generated output, even when they are absent from the visible answer. Start with a moderate effort level for routine work and compare higher effort on difficult cases. When connecting an existing client, check supported reasoning, tool, and response-format options alongside the base URL and credentials.
與本模型相關的指南、對比與更新。
所有文章
Use Muse Wonder 1.0 API to turn documents and research sources into verified decisions and tasks, with prompts, costs, safeguards, and a GPTProto trial.

Compare Gemini 4 Argon, GPT-6 Astra and Claude Opus 5.5 across official API pricing, coding benchmarks, context windows, output limits and computer-use capabilities. Explore model-specific API access through GPTProto with one key and a shared balance.

Kimi leads the Chinese Arena—but Qwen wins overall. Compare 9 Chinese LLM providers by API access, pricing, open weights, licensing, and production fit.

Compare the six best LLM API providers in 2026 by model access, pricing structure, speed, compatibility, governance, and developer experience.