FDIC BankFind MCP Server

Institution Franchise Footprint

fdic_franchise_footprint

Read-onlyIdempotent

Analyze an FDIC-insured institution's geographic footprint across MSAs, revealing branch counts, deposit totals, and deposit share from Summary of Deposits data.

Instructions

Analyze the geographic franchise footprint of an FDIC-insured institution using Summary of Deposits (SOD) data.

Shows how an institution's branches and deposits are distributed across metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), providing a market-by-market breakdown of branch count, deposit totals, and percentage of the institution's total deposits.

Output includes:

Total branch count, deposits, and market count
Market-by-market breakdown sorted by deposits
Structured JSON for programmatic consumption

Branches outside MSAs are grouped under "Non-MSA / Rural".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cert`	Yes	FDIC Certificate Number
`year`	No	SOD report year. Defaults to most recent.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 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
```
addedInput schema / properties / year / 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

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations: results are sorted by deposits, totals are included, and branches outside MSAs are grouped under 'Non-MSA / Rural'. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: a clear lead sentence, focused output bullets, and a useful non-MSA caveat. The bullet about 'Structured JSON for programmatic consumption' is slightly redundant given the output schema, but the overall length is appropriate.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the output schema, strong annotations, and only two parameters, the description is nearly complete for invocation. It covers scope, grouping behavior, and outputs. The main gap—explicit alternative routing—is already penalized under usage guidelines.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, including the meaning of cert and the year default, so the baseline is 3. The description adds contextual framing ('FDIC-insured institution', SOD data) but no new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema.

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 ('Analyze the geographic franchise footprint') and a named data source (Summary of Deposits). It defines a unique deliverable—market-by-market branch and deposit breakdown across MSAs—that distinguishes it from sibling financial-analysis tools like fdic_market_share_analysis.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The intended use is implied: given an FDIC-insured institution, analyze its footprint. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and it does not name alternatives or conditions that would route an agent to a different sibling tool.

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