A2A
Agent to Agent ProtocolAgent-to-AgentAgent2AgentAgent CardA2A
Providers using this tag (453)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 81 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 104 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 129 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 71 Limited public surface area
Emerging 41 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 27 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (251)
Ranked by the provider's API Evangelist rating — the Kin Score is scored per provider, not per API, so every API of a provider shares its band. How the rating works →
Exemplar 11 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 38 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 102 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 62 Limited public surface area
Emerging 35 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 3 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (49)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “A2A” but do not classify their business under it. Listed unranked and kept out of the count above, because one tagged operation is not a statement about what a company does.
Score breakdown
Where this tag sits
453 providers carry this tag directly, and 456 counting the 1 narrower tag below — 3 more to reach.
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Markets provisional
Kin Score markets whose measured providers carry this tag. Share is the fraction of the market's measured providers that carry it — it describes the market, not this tag.
| Market | Share of the market's providers |
|---|---|
| AI Agents (A2A agent cards) | 74% |
| x402 Micropayments & Agentic Pay-per-Call | 52% |
| Typed Decision Models | 27% |
| Commerce and CRM | 24% |
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 439 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged A2A, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.
| Facet | This cohort | Catalog | Difference | Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Developer Ergonomics | 52 | 22.1 | +29.9 | 439 |
| Contract Quality | 44.9 | 18.2 | +26.7 | 439 |
| Access Clarity | 51.2 | 25 | +26.2 | 439 |
| Operational Transparency | 38 | 12.4 | +25.6 | 439 |
| Contract Governance | 26.2 | 9.4 | +16.8 | 439 |
| Discoverability | 72.5 | 57.9 | +14.6 | 439 |
A facet is averaged over the members that carry it, not over the whole cohort — the “Scored” column is that count. Averaging an absent facet as zero would score our own coverage gaps as the providers’ posture.
| Artifact | This cohort | Catalog | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MCP server (any) | 82% | 16% | +66 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 80% | 14% | +66 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 32% | 13% | +19 |
| Security | 100% | 98% | +2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 4% | 2% | +2 |
| Governance rules | 80% | 35% | +45 |
mcp_pct counts any mcp/ artifact including ones API Evangelist derived from the provider OpenAPI; mcp_first_party_pct counts only servers the provider publishes. Prefer the latter.
- 1 APIs.io 95.4
- 2 Nylas 92.6
- 3 Salesforce 90.6
- 4 Customer.io 86.9
- 5 CData 83.8
- 6 Cloudflare 82.8
- 7 Redocly 82.7
- 8 Leadping 82.1
- 9 ActiveCampaign 82
- 10 Uphold 81.6
- 1 Xquik 91.8
- 2 APIs.io 79.5
- 3 Sirenic 75.6
- 4 Emboss 75.2
- 5 Agent Ready 74.4
- 6 ClosedLoop AI 73.8
- 7 Primitive 73.2
- 8 Cymetica 73
- 9 Agentcard 72.3
- 10 Leadping 71.7
Coverage caveat. 227 of 439 scored members had under half their catalog-attributable points satisfied at all (catalog_earned / catalog_max < 0.5). They are INCLUDED in the mean above. A large share here means the cohort mean is partly a measurement of how far our enrichment reached, not only of how these providers publish.Generated from the catalog build of 7 November 2026, across 38912 providers, using the same computation served by the APIs.io cohort API. Briefs are published for rosters of 5 or more scored providers; below that a distribution is not meaningful.
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.