Agent-Native
Providers using this tag (418)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 91 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 140 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 149 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 33 Limited public surface area
Emerging 5 Early or largely undocumented
APIs with this tag (277)
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 24 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 73 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 120 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 39 Limited public surface area
Emerging 20 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 1 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (158)
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.
Show all 158 companies ↓
Score breakdown
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) | 25% |
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 367 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 | 61.1 | 23.2 | +37.9 | 367 |
| Contract Quality | 55.1 | 17.6 | +37.5 | 367 |
| Operational Transparency | 45.9 | 13.7 | +32.2 | 367 |
| Access Clarity | 56.1 | 26.5 | +29.6 | 367 |
| Discoverability | 72.5 | 58.1 | +14.4 | 367 |
| Contract Governance | 16.7 | 6.3 | +10.4 | 367 |
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) | 70% | 14% | +56 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 68% | 12% | +56 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 52% | 11% | +41 |
| Security | 100% | 98% | +2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 10% | 2% | +8 |
| Governance rules | 24% | 14% | +10 |
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 Xquik 91.4
- 2 Telnyx 83.6
- 3 OneSignal 75.4
- 4 APIs.io 75.3
- 5 DoiT 74.4
- 6 ClosedLoop AI 74.2
- 7 Cloudflare 72.5
- 8 Natural AI 71.2
- 9 AnyAPI 70.8
- 10 Mollie 69.8
Coverage caveat. 244 of 367 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 5 October 2026, across 29093 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.