NFT
NFTsNon-Fungible TokensNFT
Providers using this tag (124)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 1 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Developing 14 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 34 Limited public surface area
Emerging 34 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 38 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (55)
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 2 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 4 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 9 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 28 Limited public surface area
Emerging 12 Early or largely undocumented
Companies reaching this through an API (16)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “NFT” 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 116 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged NFT, 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 | 30 | 23.2 | +6.8 | 116 |
| Contract Quality | 23.8 | 17.2 | +6.6 | 116 |
| Discoverability | 62.3 | 57.9 | +4.4 | 116 |
| Operational Transparency | 13.1 | 13 | +0.1 | 116 |
| Contract Governance | 5.2 | 6.5 | -1.3 | 116 |
| Access Clarity | 15.7 | 23.9 | -8.2 | 116 |
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) | 14% | 13% | +1 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 14% | 12% | +2 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 5% | 11% | -6 |
| Security | 99% | 98% | +1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 3% | 2% | +1 |
| Governance rules | 21% | 16% | +5 |
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 Immutable 67.7
- 2 Kraken 64.4
- 3 Zerion 60.8
- 4 Ankr 55.6
- 5 Aptos 49.5
- 6 Horizon Blockchain Games 46.1
- 7 Unlock Protocol 45.9
- 8 Blockfrost 45.1
- 9 Gunzilla Games 44.7
- 10 Bitski 42.2
- 1 Immutable 59.5
- 2 Hedera 58.5
- 3 Art Blocks 57.8
- 4 Ankr 44.6
- 5 Alchemy 43.2
- 6 Bitquery 42
- 7 Zerion 38.6
- 8 OpenSea 37.5
- 9 Futureverse 36.7
- 10 Kraken 35.4
Coverage caveat. 108 of 116 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.