flow_gastosShows daily Flow credit usage by type/model and flags costly generations from local PC records, without opening a browser or spending credits.
Mostra quanto foi gasto de créditos do Flow por dia, por tipo/modelo e as gerações mais caras, a partir do registro deste PC (não abre o navegador, não gasta nada).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dias | No | Quantos dias para trás (padrão 7). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.16.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds useful context beyond that: it reads from this PC's log, does not open the browser, and does not spend credits. There is a mild tension with openWorldHint=true, but it is not a clear contradiction of the local-read behavior described.
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?
The description is a single efficient sentence with the core report content front-loaded. The parenthetical about local execution and zero cost is compact and directly useful.
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?
For a simple read-only reporting tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what data is reported, where it comes from, and that it is side-effect free. The only small gap is that it does not mention the time-range parameter, though the schema fully documents it.
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?
There is one optional parameter ('dias'), and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains the default of 7 days and the 1–365 range. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which fits the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
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 states a specific verb ('Mostra') and a precise resource: credit spend per day, by type/model, plus the most expensive generations. It also distinguishes the data source as the local PC log rather than a live browser session, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like flow_creditos or flow_custo.
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?
Usage is implied: this is for analyzing historical credit consumption from the local log. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this versus flow_creditos, flow_custo, or other Flow tools, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.