Layer 2
L2Layer 2
Providers using this tag (35)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Developing 5 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 14 Limited public surface area
Emerging 14 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 2 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (17)
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 1 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 1 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 1 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 6 Limited public surface area
Emerging 8 Early or largely undocumented
Companies reaching this through an API (7)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Layer 2” 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
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 33 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Layer 2, 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 | 39.6 | 24.5 | +15.1 | 33 |
| Discoverability | 68.5 | 59.1 | +9.4 | 33 |
| Operational Transparency | 21.1 | 13.2 | +7.9 | 33 |
| Contract Quality | 26.2 | 18.6 | +7.6 | 33 |
| Contract Governance | 10.5 | 9.7 | +0.8 | 33 |
| Access Clarity | 16.4 | 30 | -13.6 | 33 |
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) | 12% | 18% | -6 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 12% | 16% | -4 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 0% | 13% | -13 |
| Security | 100% | 99% | +1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 0% | 1% | -1 |
| Governance rules | 48% | 36% | +12 |
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 Consensys 47.6
- 2 Zircuit 45.9
- 3 Arbiscan 42.4
- 4 Optimism Etherscan 42
- 5 Linea 40.3
- 6 Optimism 37.3
- 7 Matter Labs 37.2
- 8 Starkware 36.8
- 9 Aurora 35.1
- 10 Mezo 34.8
- 1 Optimism 33
- 2 Base 32
- 3 Optimism Etherscan 28.7
- 4 Arbiscan 26.6
- 5 Linea 26.5
- 6 Basescan 26.4
- 7 Ribbon Finance 24.8
- 8 Starkware 21.6
- 9 Arbitrum 21.5
- 10 Starknet 21.5
Coverage caveat. 31 of 33 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 14 November 2026, across 41591 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.