FDIC BankFind MCP Server

Search Annual Financial Summary Data

fdic_search_summary

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve annual financial snapshots (assets, deposits, ROA, ROE, offices) for FDIC-insured institutions, filtered by certificate number and year.

Instructions

Use this when the user wants annual financial-summary snapshots (assets, deposits, ROA, ROE, offices) for FDIC-insured institutions, filtered by CERT and/or year. See fdic://schemas/summary 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 (e.g., 2022)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`total`	Yes
`offset`	Yes
`count`	Yes
`has_more`	Yes
`next_offset`	No
`summary`	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"
+    },
+    "has_more": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "next_offset": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "offset": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "summary": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": {},
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "total": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "truncated": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "total",
+    "offset",
+    "count",
+    "has_more",
+    "summary"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv1.1.3Mar 19, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds the annual snapshot nature and field scope, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior or response structure, which are partly covered by schema and output schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that front-load the primary use case and then direct the user to a schemata reference for the full field catalog. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool's moderate complexity (8 parameters, output schema, rich annotations), the description provides the necessary high-level purpose and usage context while relying on the schema for details. However, it could be more complete by explicitly naming sibling alternatives to help disambiguate among the many FDIC search tools.

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 provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 8 parameters, including types, ranges, defaults, and examples. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond stating CERT/year filtering and a few summary fields, so it doesn't meaningfully augment what the schema already communicates.

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 identifies the tool as providing annual financial-summary snapshots (assets, deposits, ROA, ROE, offices) for FDIC-insured institutions, with filtering by CERT and/or year. This specific verb-resource-scope combination distinguishes it from sibling search tools like fdic_search_financials or fdic_search_institutions.

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 opening phrase 'Use this when the user wants annual financial-summary snapshots' provides explicit when-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use it or contrast it with specific alternatives among the many sibling search tools, so it slightly misses the full 5-point criterion.

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