Branch-office deposit data from the FDIC Summary of Deposits (annual snapshot). Returns deposits per branch sorted by deposit volume, useful for measuring local-market banking concentration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | City name | |
| limit | No | Max branches (default 25) | |
| state | No | Two-letter state code |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the source is an annual FDIC Summary of Deposits snapshot, and results are sorted by deposit volume.
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 sentences with no wasted words. The data source and primary behavior are front-loaded, followed by sorting behavior and use case, making it easy to scan.
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?
The description conveys source, granularity, and ordering, which is adequate for a simple read-only lookup. However, with no output schema and all parameters optional, it does not clarify whether city/state are required or what the returned branch records contain beyond deposit volume, leaving minor gaps for an agent making the call.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description clarifies that the limit applies to branches ordered by deposit volume, but it does not add significant meaning to the city or state parameters beyond what the schema already states.
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?
Description states a specific verb/resource: returns branch-office deposit data from the FDIC Summary of Deposits, with explicit output behavior (deposits per branch sorted by deposit volume). This clearly distinguishes it from institution-level FDIC siblings like fdic_search_institutions and fdic_financials.
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 phrase 'useful for measuring local-market banking concentration' provides a clear use case. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient to route an agent toward this tool for branch-level deposit data rather than other FDIC tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.