FDIC BankFind MCP Server

Holding Company Profile

fdic_holding_company_profile

Read-onlyIdempotent

Profile a bank holding company by consolidating its FDIC-insured subsidiaries' financials. Look up by holding company name or any subsidiary's CERT number.

Instructions

Profile a bank holding company by grouping its FDIC-insured subsidiaries and aggregating financial metrics. Look up by holding company name or by any subsidiary's CERT number.

Output includes:

Consolidated summary with total assets, deposits, and asset-weighted ROA/equity ratio
List of all FDIC-insured subsidiaries with individual metrics
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`	No	CERT of any subsidiary — looks up its holding company, then profiles the entire HC.
`hc_name`	No	Holding company name (e.g., "JPMORGAN CHASE & CO"). Uses NAMEHCR field.

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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds that this is an analytical tool based on public financial data and that it produces consolidated subsidiary metrics. It is consistent and mildly useful, but it does not disclose edge cases such as no-match or missing-parameter behavior.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the output bullets make the structure readable. The 'Structured JSON' bullet and the public-data note add only modest value, so it is concise enough but not maximally tight.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The output schema covers return shape and the annotations cover safety, so the description does not need to repeat those. It lacks an explicit statement that at least one lookup parameter should be supplied and what happens if both or neither are provided, which is a real invocation gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the cert and hc_name descriptions. The description restates the two lookup modes and the NAMEHCR field detail already present in the schema, adding no new semantic meaning beyond emphasizing the lookup paths.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action and resource: profile a bank holding company by grouping its FDIC-insured subsidiaries and aggregating financial metrics. This clearly distinguishes it from institution-level FDIC tools, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

It describes how to look up a holding company (by hc_name or by subsidiary CERT) and what output to expect, so the basic use context is evident. It does not state when to prefer this over sibling tools like fdic_get_institution or fdic_peer_group_analysis, nor any exclusions.

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