FDIC BankFind MCP Server

Peer Group Analysis

fdic_peer_group_analysis

Read-onlyIdempotent

Build a peer group for an FDIC-insured bank and rank it against comparable institutions on financial and efficiency metrics for a chosen report date.

Instructions

Build a peer group for an FDIC-insured institution and rank it against peers on financial and efficiency metrics at a single report date.

Three usage modes:

Subject-driven: provide cert and repdte — auto-derives peer criteria from the subject's asset size and charter class
Explicit criteria: provide repdte plus asset_min/asset_max, charter_classes, state, or raw_filter
Subject with overrides: provide cert plus explicit criteria to override auto-derived defaults

Metrics ranked (fixed order):

Total Assets, Total Deposits, ROA, ROE, Net Interest Margin
Equity Capital Ratio, Efficiency Ratio, Loan-to-Deposit Ratio
Deposits-to-Assets Ratio, Non-Interest Income Share

Rankings use competition rank (1, 2, 2, 4). Rank, denominator, and percentile all use the same comparison set: matched peers plus the subject institution.

Output includes:

Subject rankings and percentiles (when cert provided)
Peer group medians
Peer list with CERTs (pass to fdic_compare_bank_snapshots for trend analysis)
Metric definitions with directionality metadata

Override precedence: cert derives defaults, then explicit params override them.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cert`	No	Subject institution CERT number. When provided, auto-derives peer criteria and ranks this bank against peers.
`limit`	No	Max peer records returned in the response. All matched peers are used for ranking regardless of this limit.
`state`	No	Two-letter state code (e.g., "NC", "TX").
`repdte`	No	Report Date (REPDTE) in YYYYMMDD format. FDIC data is published quarterly on: March 31, June 30, September 30, and December 31. Example: 20231231 for Q4 2023. If omitted, defaults to the most recent quarter-end date likely to have published data (~90-day lag).
`asset_max`	No	Maximum total assets ($thousands) for peer selection. Defaults to 200% of subject's report-date assets when cert is provided.
`asset_min`	No	Minimum total assets ($thousands) for peer selection. Defaults to 50% of subject's report-date assets when cert is provided.
`raw_filter`	No	Advanced: raw ElasticSearch query string appended to peer selection criteria with AND.
`active_only`	No	Limit to institutions where ACTIVE:1 (currently operating, FDIC-insured).
`extra_fields`	No	Additional FDIC field names to include as raw values in the response. Does not affect peer selection.
`charter_classes`	No	Charter class codes to include (e.g., ["N", "SM"]). Defaults to the subject's charter class when cert is provided.

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: +{}
```

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

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description does not contradict any of these. Beyond that, it adds rich behavioral context: ranking uses competition rank (1, 2, 2, 4), the comparison set is 'matched peers plus the subject institution,' and the limit parameter affects only returned peer count while all matched peers are used for ranking. This transparency exceeds what annotations alone provide.

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 long but meticulously structured with clear sections: purpose, usage modes, metrics, ranking methodology, output contents, and override precedence. Every sentence contributes new information—there is no fluff. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, and technical details are logically organized for easy scanning.

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?

Given the complexity of 10 parameters, three usage modes, and a ranking algorithm, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers all parameter defaults, the ranking method, the output schema (subject rankings, peer medians, peer list, metric definitions), and even explains the relationship to a sibling tool. An agent has all the information needed to invoke the tool correctly in any mode.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds significant value by explaining parameter interdependencies. It specifies that asset_min/asset_max default to 50%/200% of the subject's report-date assets when cert is provided, that charter_classes defaults to the subject's charter class, and that the three usage modes map to different parameter combinations. This goes far beyond the schema's isolated field descriptions.

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 clear, specific statement: 'Build a peer group for an FDIC-insured institution and rank it against peers on financial and efficiency metrics at a single report date.' It immediately distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fdic_compare_bank_snapshots and fdic_analyze_bank_health by focusing on peer group construction and ranking. The purpose is precise and unambiguous.

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 explicitly enumerates three usage modes (subject-driven, explicit criteria, subject with overrides) and explains when each is appropriate. It also provides routing guidance by stating that the peer list with CERTs can be 'pass[ed] to fdic_compare_bank_snapshots for trend analysis,' which directly addresses alternatives. The override precedence is clearly documented.

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