{
  "fixes": {
    "slug": "cloudviz",
    "name": "Cloudviz API",
    "listing": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/cloudviz",
    "markdown": "# Fix list: Cloudviz API\n\nFrom Anchor Terminal's listing at https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/cloudviz, the October 2026 research run, assessed 1 October 2026. Grade F, 37.9 out of 100.\n\nThis is everything the published grade says the listing lacks, the biggest possible gain to the total first. It comes from the reason given for each score, the checklist each category was scored against (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist), the provenance checks, the deductions, what we couldn't check and what the review panel asked for. A fix counts at the next check, once it's public.\n\nFor a coding agent working on Cloudviz API: work through the items below in the product, its docs and its public pages. Each category gives the reason for its score, with the points each checklist item earned, and the checklist itself, so the gap is the items that earned less than their points. Change the product, not the wording, and keep a note of what you changed and where it's published.\n\n## 1. Reliability, 20 out of 100, up to 16 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 20: No status page found, and status.cloudviz.io doesn't resolve (0). No readable incident history (5). The OpenAPI description says requests are throttled per key on rate, burst and a daily cap, with no numbers (0). 429 is named but there's no Retry-After or backoff guidance, though the spec does explain the 202 in-progress reply and polling the same URL (5). No SLA on any plan, and the pricing page never mentions one (0). The API is sold as a working product, not a beta (10).\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-reliability):\n\nHosted APIs, MCP servers, models and platforms.\n\n- 20, a public status page with component history (Statuspage, Instatus, BetterStack or the vendor's own).\n- 0 to 30, the incident record for the last 90 days on that page. 30 for a clean record or trivial incidents only, 20 for minor incidents only, 10 for one major outage (an hour or more of a core API down, or errors across the board), 0 for several. 5 when there's no history we could read, and the note says so.\n- 15, rate limits documented with numbers.\n- 15, documented 429 or overload handling (Retry-After, backoff guidance), and idempotency keys or safe-retry guidance where writes are involved.\n- 10, an SLA published for any paid tier.\n- 10, the surface agents use is generally available, not beta or preview.\n\nLocal packages, SDKs, frameworks and stdio MCP servers.\n\n- 20, installs from an official package with supported runtimes stated.\n- 25, a public CI and test suite, passing on the default branch.\n- 0 to 25, open crash or regression issues relative to activity (25 for few and handled, 0 for many, old and unanswered).\n- 15, semver discipline and breaking changes called out in a changelog.\n- 15, version 1.0 or later, or declared stable.\n\nProtocols are read from their reference implementations, the public facilitators or servers, spec stability and test vectors.\n\n## 2. Payments \u0026 pricing, 20 out of 100, up to 10 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 20: No x402, MPP or L402 (0). Plan prices are public, API only from Team at $49 a month, no per-call price (10). A 10-day trial for \"every new subscriber\". The page doesn't say whether a card is needed at signup (10). A person signs up in the browser and connects AWS by hand (0).\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-payments):\n\nThe published rubric, also on the [x402 page](https://www.anchorterminal.com/x402/).\n\n- 40, a machine payment protocol (x402, MPP or L402) on the tool's own endpoints. 10 to 30 when it covers only some endpoints or only goes through a third party, and the note says which.\n- 20, per-call or per-unit pricing published without a login. 10 for public plan-only pricing, 0 for \"contact sales\" or prices behind a login.\n- 20, a free tier or trial that doesn't need a card.\n- 20, autonomous onboarding, meaning an agent can get access without a person signing up in a browser (keyless use, x402, a programmatic key API).\n\nPayment platforms and agent wallets rarely charge for their own API over a machine protocol, so the first line has steps for them, and the highest one that applies counts. 40 when x402, MPP or L402 runs on all their own endpoints, 30 when it runs on part of their own API, 25 when their merchants can accept one, 20 for running a facilitator, 15 for paying as a buyer, and 0 when the only protocol is their own. Merchant acceptance sits above a facilitator because the platform's own customers can charge agents through it, while a facilitator settles for sellers who wire up the protocol themselves. The counter-argument (a facilitator does more for the protocol as a whole) has a point. Each note says which step applied.\n\nOpen-source software you run yourself is scored on its hosted or paid option if it has one. A free, self-hosted package with nothing to buy gets 20, 20 and 20 for the last three lines, and 0 to 40 for the first only if it ships a payment protocol.\n\n## 3. Maintenance \u0026 community, 5 out of 100, up to 8.3 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 5: No changelog, release notes or dated API change found, so we can't date the last release (0). No dated entries in the last 90 days (0). The newest blog post is from 14 March 2025, and the GitHub samples repo was last touched on 30 October 2023. Support by email, with priority support on Team, not tested (5). No official SDK (0). No package to assess (0).\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-maintenance):\n\n- 0 to 30, time since the last release, or the last published model or API change for a closed service. 30 within 30 days, 20 within 90, 10 within 180, 0 older.\n- 20, at least three releases or dated changelog entries in the last 90 days.\n- 0 to 25, responsiveness. Issues and pull requests answered on GitHub (the open issues and how recent the replies are). For closed services, a public changelog and a support or community channel that answers, 0 to 15.\n- 15, presence in the official MCP registry under a verified namespace (MCP servers), or current official SDKs (APIs and models).\n- 10, package health, current dependencies and CI.\n\nModels are read for deprecation notice periods and model churn rather than release counts.\n\n## 4. Security \u0026 auth, 53 out of 100, up to 8.2 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 53: API key in the `x-api-key` header, each key read-only or read and write and changeable at any time per the 30 September check. No secret in URLs (25). AWS access is a cross-account role with a per-customer external ID, and Cloudviz recommends the AWS ReadOnlyAccess policy or a narrower custom one. No confirmation step before the DELETE on an AWS account (15). Output is your own AWS resource names and tags, not open web content, and there's no injection guidance (8). No audit log for API calls found (0). A security page with security@cloudviz.io, AES-256 at rest and TLS in transit. The certifications it lists are AWS's, not Cloudviz's. No security.txt (404), no bug bounty (5).\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-security):\n\n- 0 to 30, the credential model. 30 for OAuth 2.1 with scopes, or scoped and revocable keys with rotation. 20 for plain revocable API keys. 10 for one all-powerful key. 10 off when a secret can travel in a URL query string as a documented option.\n- 0 to 20, read-only or least-privilege modes, and confirmation or approval for destructive actions.\n- 0 to 15, prompt-injection posture where the tool returns untrusted content (documented mitigations or guidance). A tool that returns no untrusted content gets 10.\n- 0 to 15, audit logs or per-call visibility for the operator.\n- 0 to 20, a security programme. security.txt or a disclosure policy, a bug bounty, SOC 2 or ISO 27001, advisories handled in public.\n\nModels are read for retention, whether API data trains models (and whether that's off by default), zero-retention options and certifications. Frameworks for telemetry defaults, approval hooks, guardrails and sandboxing.\n\n## 5. Agent ergonomics, 50 out of 100, up to 8.1 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 50: Seven endpoints, so the contract is small, and output can be narrowed with generation profiles and the two JSON formats (15). Filtering through saved views and profiles, no pagination on the account list (10). Error codes are documented, messages are not (10). The snapshot GET can be repeated safely while it returns 202, writes to AWS accounts have no idempotency keys (10). Few required parameters, but no official SDK in any language (5).\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-ergonomics):\n\n- 0 to 25, context cost. For MCP, the number and size of the tool definitions (25 for ten or fewer compact tools, 15 for 11 to 30, 5 for more than 30, plus up to 10 back for toolsets, dynamic loading or read-only subsets). For APIs, whether responses can be sized (field selection, limits, summaries).\n- 20, pagination, filtering and output-size controls.\n- 20, actionable, documented error responses, codes and messages an agent can recover from.\n- 20, idempotency or safe retries, and for MCP the `readOnlyHint` and `destructiveHint` annotations.\n- 15, sensible defaults, few required parameters, and official SDKs in at least two languages.\n\nModels are read for tool use, structured output, prompt caching, context length, batch and SDKs. Frameworks for how much code and how many defaults a tool-calling agent with MCP needs.\n\n## 6. Schema \u0026 documentation, 58 out of 100, up to 6.8 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 58: Public OpenAPI 3.0.3 file with 7 operations (25). No llms.txt, the URL returns 404 (0). Every operation has a description of what it does, none say when not to use it (10). The snapshot `format` parameter is an enum of svg, png, pdf, drawio, jsonDiagram and jsonSnapshot, and the path is typed (10). Response codes 200, 201, 202, 204, 400, 401, 403 and 404 are documented, plus a Postman collection, but few example bodies (10). `info.version` is 1.0.0 and there's no changelog (3).\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-schema):\n\nAPIs and MCP servers.\n\n- 25, a machine-readable contract (a public OpenAPI file or similar; for MCP, typed JSON Schema inputs on every tool).\n- 10, llms.txt or Markdown docs served for agents.\n- 0 to 20, descriptions that say what a tool is for, when to use it and when not to, read from the tool definitions in the source or the API reference.\n- 0 to 15, typed inputs with enums, constraints and required fields, and no free-form JSON blobs.\n- 0 to 15, examples and documented error responses.\n- 15, versioning and a public changelog.\n\nModels are read from the API reference, the OpenAPI file, llms.txt, the structured-output and tool-use docs and the model cards. Frameworks from docs a model can follow, typed interfaces, examples and the API reference.\n\n## 7. Transparency \u0026 trust, 47 out of 100, up to 4.6 more on the total\n\nMade of editorial 38, provenance 55.\n\nWhy it scored 47: Closed source with terms under Latvian law, last updated 26 March 2019 (15). The privacy policy is hosted on iubenda, which our reader couldn't load (robots.txt). The security page covers encryption and hosting but no retention period or DPA (10). The terms promise at least 30 days' notice for material changes to the terms, with no API deprecation policy (5). AWS hosting and Stripe for payments are named, no region (8).\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-transparency):\n\n- 0 to 30, source availability and licence clarity. 30 for open source under an OSI licence, 15 for closed with clear terms, 0 for unclear terms.\n- 0 to 30, data handling and retention statements that agree with each other (privacy policy, DPA, retention periods, subprocessors).\n- 0 to 20, a deprecation policy or notices with dates.\n- 0 to 20, telemetry disclosed with an opt-out (local software), or subprocessors and data locations disclosed (hosted).\n\nThe other half of Transparency and trust is the provenance score, computed from checked facts (below). The category score is the mean of the two.\n\nProvenance checks not met in full (half of this category, computed from checked facts):\n\n- Domain age: cloudviz.io, no registry record we could read (0 of 15)\n- Status page: not found (0 of 10)\n- Changelog: not found (0 of 10)\n- security.txt: not found (0 of 10)\n\n## What we couldn't check\n\nWhat we couldn't read counted as absent. Publishing it on a page a plain HTTP fetch can read (not only in a browser) lets the next check count it.\n\n- Whether the 10-day trial needs a card at signup, and whether the trial includes API access\n- unchecked: the privacy policy text (hosted on iubenda, blocked to our reader by robots.txt)\n- Rate-limit and daily-cap numbers\n- Date of the last change to the API or the product\n\n## Weaknesses\n\n- AWS only, and API access starts at the $49 a month Team plan\n- Throttling on rate, burst and daily count with no published numbers\n- No status page, changelog, SLA or security.txt\n- No dated product update found since March 2025\n\n## What costs an agent a turn today\n\nThe notes we give agents before they call it. Each one is a workaround an agent shouldn't need.\n\n- Call `GET /aws/accounts/` first to get the Cloudviz account ID, then request `/aws/accounts/{account-id}/{region}/{format}`\n- On a 202, wait and repeat the same GET until the diagram is ready\n- Ask for `jsonSnapshot` or `jsonDiagram` (there is no plain `json` format) when the agent has to reason over resources\n- Use a read-only key unless the agent has to add, change or delete AWS accounts\n\n## What the review panel asked for\n\n- Publish the limits\n- A status page\n- document error bodies\n- publish llms.txt\n\n## When it's done\n\nSend what changed and where it's published as a dispute (https://www.anchorterminal.com/builders/#disputes, or `POST https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/contact` with `\"kind\": \"dispute\"`). Disputes are answered in public, and the listing is checked again by the same checklist. Paying for an audit or a listing claim changes nothing here.\n",
    "grade": "F",
    "score": 37.9,
    "assessed": "2026-10-01",
    "run": "October 2026 research run",
    "categories": [
      {
        "key": "reliability",
        "name": "Reliability",
        "score": 20,
        "maxGain": 16,
        "reason": "No status page found, and status.cloudviz.io doesn't resolve (0). No readable incident history (5). The OpenAPI description says requests are throttled per key on rate, burst and a daily cap, with no numbers (0). 429 is named but there's no Retry-After or backoff guidance, though the spec does explain the 202 in-progress reply and polling the same URL (5). No SLA on any plan, and the pricing page never mentions one (0). The API is sold as a working product, not a beta (10).",
        "checklist": [
          "Hosted APIs, MCP servers, models and platforms.",
          "- 20, a public status page with component history (Statuspage, Instatus, BetterStack or the vendor's own).\n- 0 to 30, the incident record for the last 90 days on that page. 30 for a clean record or trivial incidents only, 20 for minor incidents only, 10 for one major outage (an hour or more of a core API down, or errors across the board), 0 for several. 5 when there's no history we could read, and the note says so.\n- 15, rate limits documented with numbers.\n- 15, documented 429 or overload handling (Retry-After, backoff guidance), and idempotency keys or safe-retry guidance where writes are involved.\n- 10, an SLA published for any paid tier.\n- 10, the surface agents use is generally available, not beta or preview.",
          "Local packages, SDKs, frameworks and stdio MCP servers.",
          "- 20, installs from an official package with supported runtimes stated.\n- 25, a public CI and test suite, passing on the default branch.\n- 0 to 25, open crash or regression issues relative to activity (25 for few and handled, 0 for many, old and unanswered).\n- 15, semver discipline and breaking changes called out in a changelog.\n- 15, version 1.0 or later, or declared stable.",
          "Protocols are read from their reference implementations, the public facilitators or servers, spec stability and test vectors."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-reliability"
      },
      {
        "key": "payments",
        "name": "Payments \u0026 pricing",
        "score": 20,
        "maxGain": 10,
        "reason": "No x402, MPP or L402 (0). Plan prices are public, API only from Team at $49 a month, no per-call price (10). A 10-day trial for \"every new subscriber\". The page doesn't say whether a card is needed at signup (10). A person signs up in the browser and connects AWS by hand (0).",
        "checklist": [
          "The published rubric, also on the [x402 page](https://www.anchorterminal.com/x402/).",
          "- 40, a machine payment protocol (x402, MPP or L402) on the tool's own endpoints. 10 to 30 when it covers only some endpoints or only goes through a third party, and the note says which.\n- 20, per-call or per-unit pricing published without a login. 10 for public plan-only pricing, 0 for \"contact sales\" or prices behind a login.\n- 20, a free tier or trial that doesn't need a card.\n- 20, autonomous onboarding, meaning an agent can get access without a person signing up in a browser (keyless use, x402, a programmatic key API).",
          "Payment platforms and agent wallets rarely charge for their own API over a machine protocol, so the first line has steps for them, and the highest one that applies counts. 40 when x402, MPP or L402 runs on all their own endpoints, 30 when it runs on part of their own API, 25 when their merchants can accept one, 20 for running a facilitator, 15 for paying as a buyer, and 0 when the only protocol is their own. Merchant acceptance sits above a facilitator because the platform's own customers can charge agents through it, while a facilitator settles for sellers who wire up the protocol themselves. The counter-argument (a facilitator does more for the protocol as a whole) has a point. Each note says which step applied.",
          "Open-source software you run yourself is scored on its hosted or paid option if it has one. A free, self-hosted package with nothing to buy gets 20, 20 and 20 for the last three lines, and 0 to 40 for the first only if it ships a payment protocol."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-payments"
      },
      {
        "key": "maintenance",
        "name": "Maintenance \u0026 community",
        "score": 5,
        "maxGain": 8.3,
        "reason": "No changelog, release notes or dated API change found, so we can't date the last release (0). No dated entries in the last 90 days (0). The newest blog post is from 14 March 2025, and the GitHub samples repo was last touched on 30 October 2023. Support by email, with priority support on Team, not tested (5). No official SDK (0). No package to assess (0).",
        "checklist": [
          "- 0 to 30, time since the last release, or the last published model or API change for a closed service. 30 within 30 days, 20 within 90, 10 within 180, 0 older.\n- 20, at least three releases or dated changelog entries in the last 90 days.\n- 0 to 25, responsiveness. Issues and pull requests answered on GitHub (the open issues and how recent the replies are). For closed services, a public changelog and a support or community channel that answers, 0 to 15.\n- 15, presence in the official MCP registry under a verified namespace (MCP servers), or current official SDKs (APIs and models).\n- 10, package health, current dependencies and CI.",
          "Models are read for deprecation notice periods and model churn rather than release counts."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-maintenance"
      },
      {
        "key": "security",
        "name": "Security \u0026 auth",
        "score": 53,
        "maxGain": 8.2,
        "reason": "API key in the `x-api-key` header, each key read-only or read and write and changeable at any time per the 30 September check. No secret in URLs (25). AWS access is a cross-account role with a per-customer external ID, and Cloudviz recommends the AWS ReadOnlyAccess policy or a narrower custom one. No confirmation step before the DELETE on an AWS account (15). Output is your own AWS resource names and tags, not open web content, and there's no injection guidance (8). No audit log for API calls found (0). A security page with security@cloudviz.io, AES-256 at rest and TLS in transit. The certifications it lists are AWS's, not Cloudviz's. No security.txt (404), no bug bounty (5).",
        "checklist": [
          "- 0 to 30, the credential model. 30 for OAuth 2.1 with scopes, or scoped and revocable keys with rotation. 20 for plain revocable API keys. 10 for one all-powerful key. 10 off when a secret can travel in a URL query string as a documented option.\n- 0 to 20, read-only or least-privilege modes, and confirmation or approval for destructive actions.\n- 0 to 15, prompt-injection posture where the tool returns untrusted content (documented mitigations or guidance). A tool that returns no untrusted content gets 10.\n- 0 to 15, audit logs or per-call visibility for the operator.\n- 0 to 20, a security programme. security.txt or a disclosure policy, a bug bounty, SOC 2 or ISO 27001, advisories handled in public.",
          "Models are read for retention, whether API data trains models (and whether that's off by default), zero-retention options and certifications. Frameworks for telemetry defaults, approval hooks, guardrails and sandboxing."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-security"
      },
      {
        "key": "ergonomics",
        "name": "Agent ergonomics",
        "score": 50,
        "maxGain": 8.1,
        "reason": "Seven endpoints, so the contract is small, and output can be narrowed with generation profiles and the two JSON formats (15). Filtering through saved views and profiles, no pagination on the account list (10). Error codes are documented, messages are not (10). The snapshot GET can be repeated safely while it returns 202, writes to AWS accounts have no idempotency keys (10). Few required parameters, but no official SDK in any language (5).",
        "checklist": [
          "- 0 to 25, context cost. For MCP, the number and size of the tool definitions (25 for ten or fewer compact tools, 15 for 11 to 30, 5 for more than 30, plus up to 10 back for toolsets, dynamic loading or read-only subsets). For APIs, whether responses can be sized (field selection, limits, summaries).\n- 20, pagination, filtering and output-size controls.\n- 20, actionable, documented error responses, codes and messages an agent can recover from.\n- 20, idempotency or safe retries, and for MCP the `readOnlyHint` and `destructiveHint` annotations.\n- 15, sensible defaults, few required parameters, and official SDKs in at least two languages.",
          "Models are read for tool use, structured output, prompt caching, context length, batch and SDKs. Frameworks for how much code and how many defaults a tool-calling agent with MCP needs."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-ergonomics"
      },
      {
        "key": "schema",
        "name": "Schema \u0026 documentation",
        "score": 58,
        "maxGain": 6.8,
        "reason": "Public OpenAPI 3.0.3 file with 7 operations (25). No llms.txt, the URL returns 404 (0). Every operation has a description of what it does, none say when not to use it (10). The snapshot `format` parameter is an enum of svg, png, pdf, drawio, jsonDiagram and jsonSnapshot, and the path is typed (10). Response codes 200, 201, 202, 204, 400, 401, 403 and 404 are documented, plus a Postman collection, but few example bodies (10). `info.version` is 1.0.0 and there's no changelog (3).",
        "checklist": [
          "APIs and MCP servers.",
          "- 25, a machine-readable contract (a public OpenAPI file or similar; for MCP, typed JSON Schema inputs on every tool).\n- 10, llms.txt or Markdown docs served for agents.\n- 0 to 20, descriptions that say what a tool is for, when to use it and when not to, read from the tool definitions in the source or the API reference.\n- 0 to 15, typed inputs with enums, constraints and required fields, and no free-form JSON blobs.\n- 0 to 15, examples and documented error responses.\n- 15, versioning and a public changelog.",
          "Models are read from the API reference, the OpenAPI file, llms.txt, the structured-output and tool-use docs and the model cards. Frameworks from docs a model can follow, typed interfaces, examples and the API reference."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-schema"
      },
      {
        "key": "transparency",
        "name": "Transparency \u0026 trust",
        "score": 47,
        "maxGain": 4.6,
        "reason": "Closed source with terms under Latvian law, last updated 26 March 2019 (15). The privacy policy is hosted on iubenda, which our reader couldn't load (robots.txt). The security page covers encryption and hosting but no retention period or DPA (10). The terms promise at least 30 days' notice for material changes to the terms, with no API deprecation policy (5). AWS hosting and Stripe for payments are named, no region (8).",
        "blend": "editorial 38, provenance 55",
        "checklist": [
          "- 0 to 30, source availability and licence clarity. 30 for open source under an OSI licence, 15 for closed with clear terms, 0 for unclear terms.\n- 0 to 30, data handling and retention statements that agree with each other (privacy policy, DPA, retention periods, subprocessors).\n- 0 to 20, a deprecation policy or notices with dates.\n- 0 to 20, telemetry disclosed with an opt-out (local software), or subprocessors and data locations disclosed (hosted).",
          "The other half of Transparency and trust is the provenance score, computed from checked facts (below). The category score is the mean of the two."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-transparency"
      }
    ],
    "provenance": [
      {
        "label": "Domain age",
        "value": "cloudviz.io, no registry record we could read",
        "points": 0,
        "max": 15
      },
      {
        "label": "Status page",
        "value": "not found",
        "points": 0,
        "max": 10
      },
      {
        "label": "Changelog",
        "value": "not found",
        "points": 0,
        "max": 10
      },
      {
        "label": "security.txt",
        "value": "not found",
        "points": 0,
        "max": 10
      }
    ],
    "unchecked": [
      "Whether the 10-day trial needs a card at signup, and whether the trial includes API access",
      "unchecked: the privacy policy text (hosted on iubenda, blocked to our reader by robots.txt)",
      "Rate-limit and daily-cap numbers",
      "Date of the last change to the API or the product"
    ],
    "weaknesses": [
      "AWS only, and API access starts at the $49 a month Team plan",
      "Throttling on rate, burst and daily count with no published numbers",
      "No status page, changelog, SLA or security.txt",
      "No dated product update found since March 2025"
    ],
    "agentNotes": [
      "Call `GET /aws/accounts/` first to get the Cloudviz account ID, then request `/aws/accounts/{account-id}/{region}/{format}`",
      "On a 202, wait and repeat the same GET until the diagram is ready",
      "Ask for `jsonSnapshot` or `jsonDiagram` (there is no plain `json` format) when the agent has to reason over resources",
      "Use a read-only key unless the agent has to add, change or delete AWS accounts"
    ],
    "requests": [
      {
        "text": "Publish the limits",
        "reviews": 1
      },
      {
        "text": "A status page",
        "reviews": 1
      },
      {
        "text": "document error bodies",
        "reviews": 1
      },
      {
        "text": "publish llms.txt",
        "reviews": 1
      }
    ],
    "recheck": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/builders/#disputes"
  },
  "meta": {
    "attribution": "Anchor Terminal (https://www.anchorterminal.com)",
    "docs": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/docs/",
    "generatedAt": "2026-10-04",
    "license": "CC-BY-4.0",
    "method": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/",
    "methodology": "0.3",
    "openapi": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/openapi.json",
    "preview": false,
    "run": "2026-10-01",
    "runLabel": "October 2026 research run"
  }
}