Web3
Crypto Web3Web3
Providers using this tag (594)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 1 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 13 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 100 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 145 Limited public surface area
Emerging 181 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 153 Almost no public developer surface
Unrated 1 Not yet scored
APIs with this tag (61)
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 →
Strong 5 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 15 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 20 Limited public surface area
Emerging 18 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 3 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (3)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Web3” 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
594 providers carry this tag directly, and 608 counting the 3 narrower tags below — 14 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 565 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Web3, 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 | 36.2 | 23.2 | +13 | 565 |
| Discoverability | 63.1 | 57.9 | +5.2 | 565 |
| Contract Quality | 22.3 | 17.2 | +5.1 | 565 |
| Operational Transparency | 14.8 | 13 | +1.8 | 565 |
| Contract Governance | 5.3 | 6.5 | -1.2 | 565 |
| Access Clarity | 16.8 | 23.9 | -7.1 | 565 |
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) | 15% | 13% | +2 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 16% | 12% | +4 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 3% | 11% | -8 |
| Security | 99% | 98% | +1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 2% | 2% | 0 |
| Governance rules | 13% | 16% | -3 |
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 Solidus Labs 65.6
- 3 Zerion 60.8
- 4 Ultravioleta DAO 58.8
- 5 Paragraph 58.4
- 6 Solana 58.4
- 7 Biconomy 56.5
- 8 EVEDEX 56.3
- 9 Ankr 55.6
- 10 Block Lottos 55.6
- 1 Ultravioleta DAO 69.1
- 2 Immutable 59.5
- 3 Art Blocks 57.8
- 4 Moirai Labs 49.6
- 5 DefiLlama 48.7
- 6 Mysten Labs 48.6
- 7 Paragraph 46.6
- 8 Aeternity 45.2
- 9 Blockdaemon 44.8
- 10 Ankr 44.6
Coverage caveat. 537 of 565 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.