FDIC BankFind MCP Server

Compare Bank Snapshot Trends

fdic_compare_bank_snapshots

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare FDIC financial snapshots across banks and rank institutions by changes in assets, deposits, profitability, or efficiency. Supports two-point or quarterly trend analysis.

Instructions

Compare FDIC reporting snapshots across a set of institutions and rank the results by growth, profitability, or efficiency changes.

This tool is designed for heavier analytical prompts that would otherwise require many separate MCP calls. It batches institution roster lookup, financial snapshots, optional office-count snapshots, and can also fetch a quarterly time series inside the server.

Good uses:

Identify North Carolina banks with the strongest asset growth from 2021 to 2025
Compare whether deposit growth came with branch expansion or profitability improvement
Rank a specific cert list by ROA, ROE, asset-per-office, or deposit-to-asset changes
Pull a quarterly trend series and highlight inflection points, streaks, and structural shifts

Inputs:

state or certs: choose a geographic roster or provide a direct comparison set
start_repdte, end_repdte: Report Dates (REPDTE) in YYYYMMDD format — must be quarter-end dates (0331, 0630, 0930, 1231)
analysis_mode: snapshot or timeseries
institution_filters: optional extra institution filter when building the roster
active_only: default true
include_demographics: default true, adds office-count comparisons when available
sort_by: ranking field (default: asset_growth). All options: asset_growth, asset_growth_pct, dep_growth, dep_growth_pct, netinc_change, netinc_change_pct, roa_change, roe_change, offices_change, assets_per_office_change, deposits_per_office_change, deposits_to_assets_change
sort_order: ASC or DESC
limit: maximum ranked results to return

Returns concise comparison text plus structured deltas, derived metrics, and insight tags for each institution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`certs`	No	Optional list of FDIC certificate numbers to compare directly. Max 100.
`limit`	No	Maximum number of ranked comparisons to return.
`state`	No	State name for the institution roster filter. Example: "North Carolina"
`sort_by`	No	Comparison field used to rank institutions. Valid options: asset_growth, asset_growth_pct, dep_growth, dep_growth_pct, netinc_change, netinc_change_pct, roa_change, roe_change, offices_change, assets_per_office_change, deposits_per_office_change, deposits_to_assets_change.	asset_growth
`end_repdte`	No	Ending Report Date (REPDTE) in YYYYMMDD format. Must be a quarter-end date: March 31 (0331), June 30 (0630), September 30 (0930), or December 31 (1231). Must be later than start_repdte. Example: 20251231 for Q4 2025. If omitted, defaults to the most recent quarter-end date with published data (~90-day lag).
`sort_order`	No	Sort direction for the ranked comparisons.	DESC
`active_only`	No	Limit the comparison set to currently active institutions.
`start_repdte`	No	Starting Report Date (REPDTE) in YYYYMMDD format. Must be a quarter-end date: March 31 (0331), June 30 (0630), September 30 (0930), or December 31 (1231). Example: 20210331 for Q1 2021. If omitted, defaults to the same quarter one year before end_repdte.
`analysis_mode`	No	Use snapshot for two-point comparison or timeseries for quarterly trend analysis across the date range.	snapshot
`institution_filters`	No	Additional institution-level filter used when building the comparison set. Example: BKCLASS:N or CITY:"Charlotte"
`include_demographics`	No	Include office-count changes from the demographics dataset when available.

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 / certs / items / 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: +{}
```

Changed1 schema field changedv1.26.0May 1, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {},
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv1.1.3Mar 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations clearly indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to re-state that this is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations, such as the ability to batch multiple operations (roster lookup, financial snapshots, office-count snapshots, and time series) internally, the exact date format and quarter-end restriction for repdte, and the fact that it returns 'concise comparison text plus structured deltas, derived metrics, and insight tags.' It does not mention potential performance implications or detailed error scenarios, but given the annotations cover safety, a score of 4 is justified. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is moderately lengthy but well-structured with clear sections: an overview, 'Good uses,' and 'Inputs' bullet list. The most distinguishing feature (batching and ranking) is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the examples are concise and illustrative. Each sentence serves a purpose, though the parameter list repeats some schema details (like sort_by options) that are already in the schema, which adds slight redundancy. Overall, it is efficient and 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?

The description is complete given the complexity and available structured data. The output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values in detail, but it does mention 'concise comparison text plus structured deltas, derived metrics, and insight tags,' which gives a high-level preview. All parameters are described in the schema, and the description covers the high-level workflow, use cases, and parameter relationships. For an 11-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations, nothing critical for an agent to call it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and all 11 parameters are documented with descriptions, defaults, and enums. The description adds significant value by grouping inputs (e.g., 'state or certs' as roster sources), explaining the date format and quarter-end requirement in more natural language, and listing all sort_by options with their defaults. It also clarifies the meaning of 'include_demographics' and 'analysis_mode' with examples. While the schema already covers the details, the description enhances comprehension by synthesizing the parameters into use-case logic, so a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('compare' and 'rank') and a resource ('FDIC reporting snapshots'), and explicitly mentions multiple dimensions (growth, profitability, efficiency) and ranking functionality. It names sibling tools it is not, such as fdic_peer_group_analysis and fdic_analyze_bank_health, and differentiates itself by highlighting that it batches multiple operations into a single call. This makes it distinguishable from siblings without opening schemas.

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 provides explicit 'Good uses' with four concrete examples, clearly stating when to use this tool (e.g., 'Identify North Carolina banks with the strongest asset growth from 2021 to 2025') and contrasts it implicitly with alternatives by noting it is for 'heavier analytical prompts that would otherwise require many separate MCP calls.' It also gives parameter guidance (e.g., 'state or certs: choose a geographic roster or provide a direct comparison set') and clarifies that it batches operations that sibling search tools do individually. No negative usage cases are listed, but the examples and batching rationale provide very clear context.

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