FDIC BankFind MCP Server

Analyze Credit Concentration

fdic_analyze_credit_concentration

Read-onlyIdempotent

Identify credit concentration risk in FDIC-insured institutions by analyzing loan portfolio composition, CRE and construction exposure relative to capital, and interagency guidance thresholds.

Instructions

Analyze loan portfolio composition and credit concentration risk for an FDIC-insured institution. Computes CRE concentration relative to capital (per 2006 interagency guidance), loan-type breakdown, and flags concentration risks.

Output includes:

Loan portfolio composition (CRE, C&I, consumer, residential, agricultural shares)
CRE and construction concentration relative to total capital
Loan-to-asset ratio
Concentration risk signals based on interagency guidance thresholds
Structured JSON for programmatic consumption

NOTE: This is an analytical tool based on public financial data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cert`	Yes	FDIC Certificate Number
`repdte`	No	Report date (YYYYMMDD). Defaults to most recent quarter.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv3.0.1Sep 22, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

addedInput schema / properties / cert / maximum
```
Added value: +9007199254740991
```

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

changedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -trueNew value: +{}
```

Addedv1.26.0May 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It adds value by noting that the tool is analytical, relies on public financial data, applies 2006 interagency guidance thresholds, and returns structured JSON plus computed risk signals. There is no contradiction with the 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a well-structured bulleted list of outputs, and closes with a relevant data-source note. Every section earns its place and no unnecessary filler is present.

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 an analysis tool of this complexity, the description covers the purpose, methodology, guidance basis, data source, and output contents. The input schema documents the required certificate and optional report date, and the output schema handles return-value details, so nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents 'cert' as the FDIC Certificate Number and 'repdte' as the report date with a default. The description does not meaningfully elaborate on either parameter beyond the schema, but it does reinforce the analytical context in which the institution certificate is used.

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 uses specific verbs—'Analyze', 'Computes', 'flags'—and names a precise resource: loan portfolio composition and credit concentration risk for an FDIC-insured institution. It is clearly distinct from sibling analytical tools because none of them is focused specifically on credit concentration, and the listed outputs make its scope unambiguous.

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 clearly establishes when to use it: when analyzing loan portfolio composition, CRE concentration relative to capital, or concentration risk signals. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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