flow_creditsCheck your account's remaining credits before generating media, so you can track daily allowance and avoid unintended spend on Veo or Omni renders.
Reads the account's remaining Flow credits. Free accounts get 50 a day; an 8 s Veo 3.1 Lite video costs 10.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful domain context — the 50/day free allowance and the 10-credit cost of an 8 s Veo 3.1 Lite video — but says nothing about auth requirements (flow_sign_in sibling) or what the balance response looks like.
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?
Two short sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the supporting cost context follows immediately.
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 zero-parameter, read-only balance lookup with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and the scale of the numbers. It could go slightly further by noting whether sign-in is a prerequisite, but nothing critical to invocation is missing.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The pricing details it adds describe values, not parameters.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: reads the account's remaining Flow credits. It is clearly distinguishable from generation siblings such as generate_video or flow_assets, though it does not explicitly contrast with flow_status or flow_capabilities, which could plausibly overlap.
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 rather than stated — an agent infers it should check credits before spending them, and the cost figure hints at budget checks. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to flow_status or flow_capabilities is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.