API Hop

Claude Opus 4.7 API: Pricing, Playground and Examples

Review Claude Opus 4.7 API pricing and integration for software requirements, acceptance criteria and code review, with supported request examples.

Claude Opus 4.7 API pricing and billing

Official price

Input
$5.0000 /M
Output
$25.0000 /M
Cache input
$0.5000 /M
Cache write (5m)
$6.2500 /M
Cache write (1h)
$10.0000 /M

API Hop price Save 45%

Input
$2.7500 /M
Output
$13.7500 /M
Cache input
$0.2750 /M
Cache write (5m)
$3.4375 /M
Cache write (1h)
$5.5000 /M

Reference price - not independently verified. Check the publisher's current rates, billing units and applicable terms before comparing costs.

Claude Opus 4.7 online chat tool

Model settings

Advanced parameters
0 or more characters(0/No fixed limit)
No fixed character limit; the full request is subject to request-size and model-context limits. This is not a token count.
0 – 2
0 – 1
-2 – 2
-2 – 2

Conversation

How can I help you today?

Ready

Reset and start a new conversation?

This will clear the conversation and any unsent message, and restore default parameters.

Claude Opus 4.7 prompt examples

These are evaluation prompts for Claude Opus 4.7, not recorded model outputs. They analyze only supplied text; they do not execute code, inspect production systems or prove long-context performance. Check quoted evidence and acceptance criteria, then review response metadata and usage before production use.

Review this fictional payment-webhook policy: every failed POST is retried three times, no idempotency key is stored, and the balance is debited before the response is sent. Identify duplicate-charge risks, propose minimal changes and three acceptance tests. Use only these facts; do not assume access to code, tools or production systems.

Analyze this synthetic trace: [L1] 10:00:00 request A accepted; [L2] 10:00:01 worker started A; [L3] 10:00:31 client timeout; [L4] 10:00:33 worker completed A; [L5] 10:00:35 client submitted A again. Separate observations from hypotheses, cite line IDs, list missing evidence and propose two checks. Do not claim to have inspected a real system or executed a fix.

A fictional two-person team runs 2,000 reports daily. Completion within 30 minutes is acceptable. It has a database but no queue service; jobs must recover after restart and avoid duplicate delivery. Compare a database-backed batch with a dedicated queue. Give a decision table, a conditional recommendation, three unknowns and one condition that reverses your choice. Do not invent benchmarks, costs or tested guarantees.

What is Claude Opus 4.7?

Claude Opus 4.7 model focus and core capabilities

Claude Opus 4.7 is an Anthropic model for advanced software engineering and demanding knowledge work. Its model-level strengths include precise instruction following, sustained work on complex tasks, output verification, and higher-resolution visual understanding. It is a candidate for turning detailed requirements into implementation and review plans.

Claude Opus 4.7 online tools and API on API Hop

API Hop provides an online text Playground, unified Chat Completions, and native Claude Messages access for this model. Test supplied requirements, code, or notes here before integrating. This text tool does not provide image uploads, repository access, persistent file memory, or an execution environment; those require separate application capabilities.

Claude Opus 4.7 capabilities and domain strengths

For engineering work, useful output connects the requested behavior to a proposed change and a way to verify it. Evaluate Opus on that chain rather than on how confidently it describes a solution.

Precise instructions and requirements analysis

Use numbered requirements, explicit exclusions, and observable acceptance criteria. Ask Claude Opus 4.7 to map each scenario to a requirement and separate approved behavior from unresolved policy. This is useful for filtered exports, permission-sensitive features, and changes involving several states.

More literal instruction following makes contradictory or outdated prompts worth revisiting. If an export specification omits whether it includes the current page or all matching records, require an open question instead of allowing a polished answer to silently choose the policy.

Complex coding and output verification

Supply related modules, failure logs, and existing tests when asking for an investigation or patch proposal. Have the model connect a suspected defect to the call path, describe the smallest relevant change, and propose a regression test that would fail before the fix.

Separate a proposed check from a check actually run. The Playground cannot compile code or inspect your repository; your development environment must apply the patch, execute tests, and report results before a change is treated as verified.

Visual understanding and professional deliverables

Opus 4 7 supports visual understanding at the model level, including detailed interfaces and diagrams. In this text tool, provide layout descriptions, component states, extracted labels, and document structure to draft interface plans or review a presentation narrative.

There is no image, PDF, or video upload control here. A pasted screenshot URL is not proof the image was read. Confirm supported input blocks on the target interface before adding a visual workflow, then inspect generated layouts and important extracted details independently.

Sustained analysis with explicit task records

For a multi-step investigation, keep a compact record of constraints, findings, rejected options, and pending checks. Ask the model to update that record after each stage so a later recommendation can be traced to the supplied evidence.

Model-level use of file-based memory requires a system that supplies and maintains those files. This page only reuses eligible turns in the current conversation. Do not assume it remembers another session, an unprovided document, or a business decision outside the submitted context.

How to evaluate Claude Opus 4.7 for your workload

Published model evaluations do not establish API Hop latency, availability, or your project repair rate. For Opus 4 7, compare verified outcomes on your own requirements, code, and document tasks instead of importing scores from a different version or execution setup.

Suggested evaluation design; no measured results
Task inputChecksPass criteriaMetrics to record
Known defects and specification gaps, including permission or concurrency casesCheck the root cause, preserved contracts, and failure-specific testsThe defect is reproduced and fixed; missing decisions are identified without inventing policyMissed defects, false findings, test outcomes, revisions, actual token usage

Measure engineering correctness, not confident prose

Build a small set of known defects and specification gaps. Score whether the answer finds the real issue, preserves existing contracts, identifies missing decisions, and proposes a test tied to the failure. Include concurrency or permission cases that a surface-level rewrite may miss.

Agent coding benchmarks may include tools, test feedback, retries, and a specific harness. A single text reply has none of those automatically. Record both missed defects and false-positive findings, and check the proposed change in your own environment.

Evaluate document fidelity and instruction coverage

Use notes containing conflicting dates, unapproved plans, and missing owners. Check whether the output preserves attribution, flags contradictions, and resists inventing a settled decision. For requirements, count omitted conditions and newly invented behavior separately.

Compare source-aligned answers rather than only fluency or length. Document and vision scores do not demonstrate that this page retrieved a file, read an image, or checked a current fact; evaluate only the material and capabilities your integration actually supplies.

Measure token usage and end-to-end cost

Opus 4 7 uses an updated tokenizer, so the same text need not consume the same input tokens as Opus 4 6. Record actual usage, time to first output, complete duration, and required revisions when comparing versions; do not estimate cost from character count alone.

Use representative tasks and consistent acceptance criteria. Long histories and generous output allowances may raise cost, while detailed reasoning may delay final text. Measure any supported thinking configuration separately rather than treating an API example or model name as a fixed performance setting.

Claude Opus 4.7 compared with Claude and GPT models

Compare models against the work you need to complete. The table is a qualitative evaluation plan, not a ranking or a controlled API Hop benchmark.

Task-based comparison plan without unverified benchmark scores
TaskClaude Opus 4.7 evaluation focusCatalog alternativeVerification method
Complex code investigationTrace a defect through constraints and testsClaude Opus 4.6Run the proposed regression test
Requirements and policy gapsDistinguish instructions from missing decisionsClaude Sonnet 5.5Compare against approved requirements
Multi-step implementation planningKeep dependencies and validation steps explicitGPT 5.6 SolReview scope and check each dependency

When to prioritize testing Claude Opus 4.7

Prioritize a trial when a task combines detailed instructions, code dependencies, and verification requirements. A useful sample asks for both a minimal fix and an explanation of why its regression test covers the original failure.

Keep your existing Opus 4 6 prompt as a baseline, but inspect whether stricter interpretation exposes contradictory instructions. A version upgrade is not proof of improvement on every workload; grade the answers against the same expected behavior.

Choose models by task on API Hop

Confirm access for your API key through GET /v1/models, then compare candidates using the same inputs and acceptance criteria.

Include Claude Sonnet 5.5 and GPT 5.6 Sol for engineering or analysis comparisons. These are catalog alternatives to test, not claims that a name establishes speed, price, or accuracy.

Use the same source material and assess quality, rework, and current account prices. Chat Completions offers a common request structure, but native protocols, optional parameters, and tool behavior still require model-specific validation.

Why use Claude Opus 4.7 through API Hop?

Usage-based billing and model cost optimization

Charges follow current API Hop rates and actual usage. Top up on demand.

Unified AI models and data APIs, with multi-model access in one place

One API key connects multiple AI models and data services, reducing integration costs and letting you switch with one click. Business applications need both AI and data.

Call logs and application access controls, with clarity on every call

Every API call is recorded in your dashboard. Create separate API keys for different applications.

Evaluate outputs against your task

Use the documented model ID and supported parameters through API Hop. Evaluate outputs against your own acceptance criteria, then inspect usage records and response metadata before production use. A model name or example does not guarantee each result.

How to use Claude Opus 4.7 on API Hop

After creating an API key in the console, follow the documentation to get started with Claude Opus 4.7.

Prepare your account and test online

Sign in, confirm your balance, and create an API key.

Try it in the Playground

Explore the model's capabilities in the Playground to find the best way to use it.

Integrate Claude Opus 4.7 into your business

Follow our developer documentation to integrate Claude Opus 4.7 into your business.

Future model upgrades

To switch to a newer model, first confirm that its exact ID is returned by the model catalog for your API key. If it supports the same endpoint and request fields, update the model ID, then test response formats, streaming, output limits and billing before sending production traffic. For asynchronous image or video tasks, also verify job submission, status polling and result retrieval.

Claude Opus 4.7 API FAQ

Is Claude Opus 4.7 the same API model as Opus 4.6?

No. The API model name for Claude Opus 4.7 is claude-opus-4-7; the API model name for Claude Opus 4.6 is claude-opus-4-6. They are different models, so do not mix up their model parameters.

Why is thinking empty or the answer incomplete?

Native Opus 4.7 has thinking off by default and supports adaptive thinking when enabled. Thinking may be empty when it is off or the model decides it is unnecessary. For an incomplete answer, check the completion state and output allowance, leaving enough room for thinking and final text.

How should I troubleshoot authentication, balance, or access errors?

Follow the API error documentation to diagnose the issue.

Can I use OpenAI Responses for Claude Opus 4.7?

OpenAI Responses is not supported. Claude has its own Claude Messages format; see the documentation for details.

Can I force a tool call or edit a native Messages conversation?

Native Opus 4.7 supports forced tool_choice types any or tool with adaptive thinking. Follow the documentation for the interface you use. Take care when replaying preserved thinking after editing earlier messages. Keep native assistant content blocks and their signatures intact during tool continuations.

Is conversation memory permanent?

No. The API does not automatically retain conversation context for subsequent requests. Manage the history yourself and include the required context in each request. Long-term memory must be implemented by your application.

Related text APIs