Rewards
Providers using this tag (132)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Developing 12 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 25 Limited public surface area
Emerging 52 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 32 Almost no public developer surface
Unrated 1 Not yet scored
APIs with this tag (89)
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 10 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 10 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 21 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 25 Limited public surface area
Emerging 15 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 8 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (54)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Rewards” 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 54 companies ↓
Score breakdown
Where this tag sits
132 providers carry this tag directly, and 134 counting the 1 narrower tag below — 2 more to reach.
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 120 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Rewards, 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 | 26.6 | 24.5 | +2.1 | 120 |
| Contract Quality | 20 | 18.6 | +1.4 | 120 |
| Discoverability | 60.3 | 59.1 | +1.2 | 120 |
| Access Clarity | 31 | 30 | +1 | 120 |
| Contract Governance | 9.7 | 9.7 | 0 | 120 |
| Operational Transparency | 11.9 | 13.2 | -1.3 | 120 |
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) | 17% | 18% | -1 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 14% | 16% | -2 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 17% | 13% | +4 |
| Security | 98% | 99% | -1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 0% | 1% | -1 |
| Governance rules | 35% | 36% | -1 |
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 Goody 63.4
- 2 Talkable 60.3
- 3 Reachdesk 56.3
- 4 Extole 52.8
- 5 LoyaltyLion 45.8
- 6 Thanx 41.2
- 7 Imprint 41
- 8 catalogapi-com 40.5
- 9 Accrue Savings 39.2
- 10 NIFT 38.9
Coverage caveat. 107 of 120 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.