Skip to main content
Glama

FDIC BankFind MCP Server

by io.github.jflamb

Peer Group Analysis

fdic_peer_group_analysis
Read-onlyIdempotent

Build a peer group for an FDIC-insured institution and rank it against peers on financial and efficiency metrics at a single report date.

Three usage modes:

  • Subject-driven: provide cert and repdte — auto-derives peer criteria from the subject's asset size and charter class

  • Explicit criteria: provide repdte plus asset_min/asset_max, charter_classes, state, or raw_filter

  • Subject with overrides: provide cert plus explicit criteria to override auto-derived defaults

Metrics ranked (fixed order):

  • Total Assets, Total Deposits, ROA, ROE, Net Interest Margin

  • Equity Capital Ratio, Efficiency Ratio, Loan-to-Deposit Ratio

  • Deposits-to-Assets Ratio, Non-Interest Income Share

Rankings use competition rank (1, 2, 2, 4). Rank, denominator, and percentile all use the same comparison set: matched peers plus the subject institution.

Output includes:

  • Subject rankings and percentiles (when cert provided)

  • Peer group medians

  • Peer list with CERTs (pass to fdic_compare_bank_snapshots for trend analysis)

  • Metric definitions with directionality metadata

Override precedence: cert derives defaults, then explicit params override them.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
certNoSubject institution CERT number. When provided, auto-derives peer criteria and ranks this bank against peers.
limitNoMax peer records returned in the response. All matched peers are used for ranking regardless of this limit.
stateNoTwo-letter state code (e.g., "NC", "TX").
repdteNoReport Date (REPDTE) in YYYYMMDD format. FDIC data is published quarterly on: March 31, June 30, September 30, and December 31. Example: 20231231 for Q4 2023. If omitted, defaults to the most recent quarter-end date likely to have published data (~90-day lag).
asset_maxNoMaximum total assets ($thousands) for peer selection. Defaults to 200% of subject's report-date assets when cert is provided.
asset_minNoMinimum total assets ($thousands) for peer selection. Defaults to 50% of subject's report-date assets when cert is provided.
raw_filterNoAdvanced: raw ElasticSearch query string appended to peer selection criteria with AND.
active_onlyNoLimit to institutions where ACTIVE:1 (currently operating, FDIC-insured).
extra_fieldsNoAdditional FDIC field names to include as raw values in the response. Does not affect peer selection.
charter_classesNoCharter class codes to include (e.g., ["N", "SM"]). Defaults to the subject's charter class when cert is provided.

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 read-only/idempotent; the description adds key behavioral details: competition rank (1,2,2,4), the comparison set includes matched peers plus subject, limit does not affect ranking, and override precedence. This goes well beyond annotation-only transparency.

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 compact but structured: purpose, usage modes, metric list, ranking methodology, output contents, override precedence. No redundant sentences; each line earns place.

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?

With 10 optional parameters and rich schema/annotations/output schema, this description covers usage modes, methodology, output contents, and parameter interactions. It even references a sibling for next steps. No significant gaps.

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?

Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description contributes a unifying usage-mode framework (subject-derived vs explicit criteria) and override precedence that explains how parameters interact, which is not directly in schema. However, many defaults are already in parameter descriptions, so it doesn't reach 5.

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?

The description opens with a specific action: 'Build a peer group for an FDIC-insured institution and rank it against peers on financial and efficiency metrics at a single report date.' This clearly distinguishes it from trend analysis tools and other FDIC analysis tools by emphasizing peer group ranking at a single date.

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?

The description explicitly lists three usage modes (subject-driven, explicit criteria, subject with overrides) and states when to use each. It also names a sibling tool for trend analysis ('pass to fdic_compare_bank_snapshots'), fulfilling the when/alternative guidance.

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