Wallets
WalletWallets
Providers using this tag (133)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 2 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 6 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 38 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 41 Limited public surface area
Emerging 22 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 24 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (199)
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 9 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 21 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 75 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 64 Limited public surface area
Emerging 25 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 5 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (123)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Wallets” 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 123 companies ↓
Score breakdown
Where this tag sits
133 providers carry this tag directly, and 134 counting the 1 narrower tag below — 1 more to reach.
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 130 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Wallets, 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 | 43.1 | 23.2 | +19.9 | 130 |
| Contract Quality | 29.2 | 17.6 | +11.6 | 130 |
| Operational Transparency | 23.1 | 13.7 | +9.4 | 130 |
| Discoverability | 64.6 | 58.1 | +6.5 | 130 |
| Access Clarity | 27.5 | 26.5 | +1 | 130 |
| Contract Governance | 6.4 | 6.3 | +0.1 | 130 |
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) | 20% | 14% | +6 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 20% | 12% | +8 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 14% | 11% | +3 |
| Security | 99% | 98% | +1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 8% | 2% | +6 |
| Governance rules | 9% | 14% | -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 Blnk Finance 67.4
- 2 Immutable 64.4
- 3 Zerion 60.8
- 4 Ziina 60
- 5 Natural AI 58.8
- 6 Biconomy 56.5
- 7 Ripple Labs 55.6
- 8 BVNK 54.3
- 9 Voltage 53.5
- 10 Accrue Savings 53.4
- 1 Natural AI 71.2
- 2 Agentcard 68.3
- 3 Immutable 58.9
- 4 Blnk Finance 52.2
- 5 Ripple Labs 51.8
- 6 Sponge 51.1
- 7 BVNK 50
- 8 Ziina 41.5
- 9 Rain 39.4
- 10 Accrue Savings 39.3
Coverage caveat. 109 of 130 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.