Skip to main content
Glama

Fdic

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Fdic Summary

fdic_summary
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get aggregate totals for FDIC-insured banks. Omit date for the most recent year with published figures; pass a year or report date for a specific one. Defaults to the US national aggregate; pass state for one state. Returns total assets, deposits, net income, interest income, institution and office counts, both combined and split by charter class (commercial bank vs savings institution).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNoReport date as YYYYMMDD ("20241231"), YYYY-MM-DD, or a bare year ("2024") for annual figures
stateNoOptional full state name (e.g., "California"). Omit for the US national total.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scopeYesWhat the aggregate covers (e.g. nationwide, or a state)
combinedYesTotals across every institution in scope
report_dateYesFDIC reporting period (YYYYMMDD)
by_charter_classYesSame totals broken out per charter class

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed8 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / description
      Added value: +"Aggregate FDIC institution financials for a reporting date."
    • addedOutput schema / properties / by_charter_class
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Same totals broken out per charter class",
+  "items": {
+    "properties": {
+      "charter_class": {
+        "type": [
+          "string",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      },
+      "institution_count": {
+        "type": [
+          "number",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      },
+      "interest_income": {
+        "type": [
+          "number",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      },
+      "net_income": {
+        "type": [
+          "number",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      },
+      "office_count": {
+        "type": [
+          "number",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      },
+      "state": {
+        "type": [
+          "string",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      },
+      "total_assets": {
+        "type": [
+          "number",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      },
+      "total_deposits": {
+        "type": [
+          "number",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      }
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / combined
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Totals across every institution in scope",
+  "properties": {
+    "institution_count": {
+      "type": [
+        "number",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "net_income": {
+      "type": [
+        "number",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "total_assets": {
+      "type": [
+        "number",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "total_deposits": {
+      "type": [
+        "number",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / properties / report_date / description
      Previous value: -"Report date in YYYYMMDD format"New value: +"FDIC reporting period (YYYYMMDD)"
    • addedOutput schema / properties / scope
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "What the aggregate covers (e.g. nationwide, or a state)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedOutput schema / properties / summary
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Industry-wide summary statistics",
-  "items": {
-    "properties": {
-      "institution_count": {
-        "description": "Number of FDIC-insured institutions",
-        "type": [
-          "number",
-          "null"
-        ]
-      },
-      "interest_income": {
-        "description": "Interest income across all FDIC-insured banks",
-        "type": [
-          "number",
-          "null"
-        ]
-      },
-      "net_income": {
-        "description": "Net income across all FDIC-insured banks",
-        "type": [
-          "number",
-          "null"
-        ]
-      },
-      "number_of_loans": {
-        "description": "Total number of loans",
-        "type": [
-          "number",
-          "null"
-        ]
-      },
-      "total_assets": {
-        "description": "Total assets across all FDIC-insured banks",
-        "type": [
-          "number",
-          "null"
-        ]
-      },
-      "total_deposits": {
-        "description": "Total deposits across all FDIC-insured banks",
-        "type": [
-          "number",
-          "null"
-        ]
-      }
-    },
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  "type": "array"
-}
    • removedOutput schema / properties / total_records
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Total number of summary records",
-  "type": "number"
-}
    • changedOutput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "report_date",
-  "total_records",
-  "summary"
-]New value: +[
+  "report_date",
+  "scope",
+  "combined",
+  "by_charter_class"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "date"
-]New value: +[]
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / date / description
      Previous value: -"Report date in YYYYMMDD format (e.g., \"20240331\" for Q1 2024)"New value: +"Report date as YYYYMMDD (\"20241231\"), YYYY-MM-DD, or a bare year (\"2024\") for annual figures"
    • addedInput schema / properties / state
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional full state name (e.g., \"California\"). Omit for the US national total.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "report_date": {
+      "description": "Report date in YYYYMMDD format",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "summary": {
+      "description": "Industry-wide summary statistics",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "institution_count": {
+            "description": "Number of FDIC-insured institutions",
+            "type": [
+              "number",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "interest_income": {
+            "description": "Interest income across all FDIC-insured banks",
+            "type": [
+              "number",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "net_income": {
+            "description": "Net income across all FDIC-insured banks",
+            "type": [
+              "number",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "number_of_loans": {
+            "description": "Total number of loans",
+            "type": [
+              "number",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "total_assets": {
+            "description": "Total assets across all FDIC-insured banks",
+            "type": [
+              "number",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "total_deposits": {
+            "description": "Total deposits across all FDIC-insured banks",
+            "type": [
+              "number",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "total_records": {
+      "description": "Total number of summary records",
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "report_date",
+    "total_records",
+    "summary"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  5. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "date": "20240331"
+  }
+]
  6. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: the default date behavior (most recent published year) and the default national scope. There's no contradiction with annotations, and the description enhances understanding of the tool's non-destructive, read-only behavior.

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 three sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It avoids redundant phrasing and is well-structured for quick parsing.

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 an output schema present, the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers the essential context: what aggregates, how parameters affect output, and the charter class split. This is complete for a relatively simple, well-annotated 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value beyond the schema by explaining how to use the optional parameters: omitting date returns latest data, passing year vs full date, and state defaults to national aggregate. This helps the agent understand the intended usage patterns.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Get aggregate totals for FDIC-insured banks.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like fdic_failures (failures), fdic_get_institution (individual institutions), and fdic_search_institutions (search), by focusing on aggregate totals. It also lists the exact metrics returned, leaving no ambiguity about scope.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear usage instructions: omit date for most recent year, pass a specific year/report date, default to national aggregate, pass state for a state-level total. This implies when to use it. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to choose this tool over siblings.

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

All Fdic 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer questions over the same underlying data catalog, and the five polymarket_* tools plus bet_research all analyze prediction-market opportunities. Tools like entity_profile, recent_changes, compare_entities, and resolve_entity also blur together for company research.

Naming Consistency2/5

Names are all snake_case but follow no consistent convention: some are bare verbs (forget, recall, remember, subscribe), some are noun phrases (fdic_failures, entity_profile, pipeworx_trending), and some are verb_noun (fdic_get_institution, generate_llms_txt, validate_claim). Even the fdic_* family mixes noun-only and verb_noun styles.

Tool Count2/5

At 36 tools this exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many.' The count is inflated by redundant meta-tools (three ask_pipeworx variants, discover_tools, suggest_questions, multiple polymarket scanners) and unrelated purpose tools (generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency, ai_visibility_check) that do not belong in an FDIC-named server.

Completeness3/5

The universal ask_pipeworx router gives broad data coverage for almost any factual question, so core lookups are unlikely to dead-end. However, the FDIC-specific surface is thin (only five tools, missing branch/geography/history data), and the server's actual scope is so broad and mixed that no single domain is fully covered end-to-end.

Resources