FDIC BankFind MCP Server

Search Summary of Deposits (SOD)

fdic_search_sod

Read-onlyIdempotent

Access annual branch-level deposit data (SOD) for FDIC-insured institutions. Filter by certificate number and year to analyze deposits by branch, MSA, and geographic area.

Instructions

Use this when the user wants annual branch-level deposit data (SOD, as of June 30 each year) — branch deposits, MSAs, geographic distribution. Filter by CERT and/or year. See fdic://schemas/sod for the full field catalog.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`filters`	No	FDIC API filter using ElasticSearch query string syntax. Combine conditions with AND/OR, use quotes for multi-word values, and [min TO max] for ranges (* = unbounded). Common fields: NAME (institution name), STNAME (state name), STALP (two-letter state code), CERT (certificate number), ASSET (total assets in $thousands), ACTIVE (1=active, 0=inactive). Examples: STNAME:"California", ACTIVE:1 AND ASSET:[1000000 TO *], NAME:"Chase"
`fields`	No	Comma-separated list of FDIC field names to return. Leave empty to return all fields. Field names are ALL_CAPS (e.g., NAME, CERT, ASSET, DEP, STALP). Example: NAME,CERT,ASSET,DEP,STALP
`limit`	No	Maximum number of records to return (1-10000, default: 20)
`offset`	No	Number of records to skip for pagination (default: 0)
`sort_by`	No	Field name to sort results by. Example: ASSET, NAME, FAILDATE
`sort_order`	No	Sort direction: ASC (ascending) or DESC (descending)	ASC
`cert`	No	Filter by FDIC Certificate Number
`year`	No	Filter by specific year (1994-present). SOD data is annual.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`total`	Yes
`offset`	Yes
`count`	Yes
`has_more`	Yes
`next_offset`	No
`deposits`	Yes
`truncated`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.26.0May 1, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "count": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "deposits": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": {},
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "has_more": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "next_offset": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "offset": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "total": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "truncated": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "total",
+    "offset",
+    "count",
+    "has_more",
+    "deposits"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv1.1.3Mar 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe, read-only nature is clear. The description adds temporal context (as of June 30 each year) and data granularity (branch-level), which goes beyond annotations. It doesn't detail response shape, but an output schema exists.

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?

Two sentences are concise and front-loaded. The first sentence gives the use case, and the second covers filtering and a pointer to the full field catalog. Every word earns its place.

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 8 parameters, a complete input schema, and an output schema, the description provides the essential when-to-use context and data vintage. It also references fdic://schemas/sod for field catalog details, covering potential gaps. It lacks a note about pagination limits or offset, but those are already in the schema.

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?

All 8 parameters have rich descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description only restates 'Filter by CERT and/or year' and references fdic://schemas/sod for field names, adding no new parameter-level meaning 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'annual branch-level deposit data (SOD, as of June 30 each year) — branch deposits, MSAs, geographic distribution'. It identifies the resource (Summary of Deposits) and the scope (branch-level, annual), distinguishing it from sibling search tools that cover financials, institutions, or locations.

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 begins with 'Use this when the user wants annual branch-level deposit data', providing explicit context for when to use. It also mentions filtering by CERT and/or year, but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools, so it loses one point for missing exclusions.

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