setDefaultDepositToAccount

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: funds default to the FUND wallet if not configured, main-key-only authorization, sub-account prohibition, UTA 2.0 limitations, and KYC compliance walls. This significantly exceeds what the annotations alone indicate and helps the agent predict side effects and restrictions.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose and followed by compact bullet points. Each line adds relevant constraints or context with no filler, making it easy for an agent to scan and act on.

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 one-parameter setter with no output schema, this description covers the essential operational context: what it does, who can call it, default fallback behavior, user-type restrictions, and possible KYC limitations. No critical missing information prevents correct invocation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, and it partially does by explaining that funds default to FUND wallet and that KYC may limit available account types. However, it does not explain the semantic difference between UNIFIED and FUND, and the mention of CONTRACT is confusing since the schema enum only allows UNIFIED and FUND.

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 opens with 'Set the default account type for receiving on-chain deposit funds,' which is a specific verb plus a clearly defined resource. This uniquely distinguishes it from sibling setters like setMarginMode, setPriceLimit, and setLeverage, none of which concern deposit account selection.

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?

The description provides explicit context and exclusions: only main UID API keys can call it, sub-accounts are not allowed, UTA 2.0 users cannot set CONTRACT, and KYC restrictions may apply. It does not name a specific alternative tool or say exactly when to prefer it over other setters, but the conditions are clear enough.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.