agent-native
Agent NativeAgent-NativeAgent-nativeagent-native
Providers using this tag (119)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 7 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 28 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 57 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 21 Limited public surface area
Emerging 3 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 3 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (120)
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 4 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 28 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 60 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 22 Limited public surface area
Emerging 5 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 1 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (27)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “agent-native” 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
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 119 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged agent-native, 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 | 52.1 | 23.3 | +28.8 | 119 |
| Access Clarity | 54.5 | 26.3 | +28.2 | 119 |
| Contract Quality | 43.9 | 19.8 | +24.1 | 119 |
| Operational Transparency | 33.4 | 13.9 | +19.5 | 119 |
| Discoverability | 74.1 | 61 | +13.1 | 119 |
| Contract Governance | 12.1 | 6.3 | +5.8 | 119 |
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) | 89% | 10% | +79 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 88% | 9% | +79 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 50% | 11% | +39 |
| Security | 97% | 97% | 0 |
| Arazzo workflows | 2% | 2% | 0 |
| Governance rules | 0% | 14% | -14 |
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 Leadping 79.6
- 2 OpenSanctions 74.6
- 3 0xArchive 72.7
- 4 Relevance AI 72.4
- 5 Blueshift 69.3
- 6 Crypto.com 68.2
- 7 Uphold 68
- 8 ControlUp 65.6
- 9 Lili 64.5
- 10 SiftingIO 63.9
- 1 Taskfolk 64
- 2 Feedly 63.3
- 3 Caplight 62.3
- 4 Sarj AI Developer API 60.4
- 5 Clozd 59.5
- 6 StayingAPI 59.4
- 7 Harmonic.ai 58.1
- 8 Insforge 57.7
- 9 Sybilion 56.7
- 10 CoreStack 55.5
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.