Financial Services
Providers using this tag (1199)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 12 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 34 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 143 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 167 Limited public surface area
Emerging 360 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 476 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (59)
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 3 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 2 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 13 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 13 Limited public surface area
Emerging 25 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 3 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (12)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Financial Services” 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
1199 providers carry this tag directly, and 2318 counting the 8 narrower tags below and the 34 beneath them — 1119 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.
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 1126 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Financial Services, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.
| Facet | This cohort | Catalog | Difference | Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Discoverability | 58.1 | 57.9 | +0.2 | 1126 |
| Access Clarity | 24.1 | 23.9 | +0.2 | 1126 |
| Contract Governance | 6.6 | 6.5 | +0.1 | 1126 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 21.7 | 23.2 | -1.5 | 1126 |
| Operational Transparency | 10.5 | 13 | -2.5 | 1126 |
| Contract Quality | 14.2 | 17.2 | -3 | 1126 |
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) | 9% | 13% | -4 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 9% | 12% | -3 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 17% | 11% | +6 |
| Security | 99% | 98% | +1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 1% | 2% | -1 |
| Governance rules | 9% | 16% | -7 |
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 Xero 84.5
- 2 Stripe 81.1
- 3 Upstox 74.9
- 4 Stax 72.5
- 5 Token.io 71.6
- 6 Adyen 71.1
- 7 Slash 69.5
- 8 Lili 68.7
- 9 Gemini Trust Company 67.6
- 10 Blnk Finance 67.4
Coverage caveat. 1062 of 1126 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 24 October 2026, across 31984 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.