Skip to main content
Glama

FDIC BankFind MCP Server

by io.github.jflamb

Deposit Market Share Analysis

fdic_market_share_analysis
Read-onlyIdempotent

Analyze deposit market share and concentration for an MSA or city market using FDIC Summary of Deposits (SOD) data.

Computes market share for all institutions in a geographic market, ranks them by deposits, and calculates the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) for market concentration analysis per DOJ/FTC merger guidelines.

Two entry modes:

  • MSA market: provide msa as the numeric MSABR code (e.g., msa: 19100 for Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, msa: 42660 for Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue). Use fdic_search_sod to look up MSABR codes.

  • City market: provide city (branch city name, e.g., "Austin") and state (two-letter code, e.g., "TX").

Output includes:

  • Market overview with total deposits, institution count, and HHI classification

  • Optional highlighted institution showing rank and share (provide cert)

  • Top institutions ranked by deposit market share

  • Structured JSON for programmatic consumption

Requires at least one of: msa (numeric MSABR code), or city + state.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
msaNoFDIC MSABR numeric code for the Metropolitan Statistical Area (e.g., 19100 for Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, 42660 for Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue). Use fdic_search_sod with MSABR to look up codes.
certNoHighlight a specific institution in the results.
cityNoCity name (e.g., "Austin"). Requires state.
yearNoSOD report year (1994-present). Defaults to most recent.
stateNoTwo-letter state abbreviation (e.g., TX). Required when using city filter.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it computes market share, ranks institutions, calculates HHI per DOJ/FTC guidelines, and produces a structured output with overview, optional highlight, top institutions, and JSON. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-organized and front-loaded: the opening sentence states the purpose, followed by labeled entry modes, output bullets, and a closing requirement. Every section earns its place, and there is no redundant filler. Despite its length, the structure makes it easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 5 parameters and two operation modes, the description fully covers both modes, required arguments, optional cert highlighting, output components, and even references a sibling tool for configuration. Given the schema and output schema already exist, this description leaves no major gaps in understanding how to select and invoke the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema has 100% documentation coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying the 'at least one of' selection logic and the city+state dependency, which are not fully captured by individual schema properties. It also provides concrete examples like '19100' and 'TX', though these also appear in the schema, so the added value is moderate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Analyze deposit market share and concentration for an MSA or city market using FDIC Summary of Deposits (SOD) data.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on market share ranking and HHI analysis rather than raw data retrieval or other financial health analyses.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly describes two entry modes (MSA vs city+state), states the minimum requirement ('Requires at least one of: msa, or city + state'), and directs users to fdic_search_sod for MSABR lookups. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and even references a sibling tool for configuration.

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

All FDIC BankFind MCP Server toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes, including exact duplicates: fdic_fetch/fetch and fdic_search/search. Analytical tools also overlap (analyze_bank_health, ubpr_analysis, detect_risk_signals), making it hard for an agent to distinguish them.

Naming Consistency2/5

Most tools follow a fdic_verb_noun pattern, but two tools (fetch, search) lack the fdic_ prefix, breaking consistency. The verb style varies (get, search, analyze, compare, detect) but the prefix inconsistency is the main issue.

Tool Count2/5

At 29 tools, the server is over the typical limit and includes redundant pairs that inflate the count. The broad FDIC domain justifies many tools, but the duplicates indicate poor scoping.

Completeness4/5

The server covers all major FDIC data resources: institutions, failures, financials, branches, history, demographics, SOD, and summary, plus analytical tools. No major gaps are evident for its read-only data and analysis purpose.

Resources