# Fix list: Descope Agentic Identity Hub From Anchor Terminal's listing at https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/descope-agentic-identity, the October 2026 research run, assessed 1 October 2026. Grade A, 79.2 out of 100. This 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. For a coding agent working on Descope Agentic Identity Hub: 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. ## 1. Payments & pricing, 40 out of 100, up to 7.5 more on the total Why it scored 40: No x402, MPP or L402 (0). Per-unit prices published without a login, $0.05 per monthly active token or consent above the allowance on Pro and Growth (20). Free Forever with 2,000 consents and 2,000 token fetches a month and no card (20). A person signs up in a browser to create a project (0). The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-payments): 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. - 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. - 20, a free tier or trial that doesn't need a card. - 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. ## 2. Agent ergonomics, 80 out of 100, up to 3.3 more on the total Why it scored 80: A token fetch returns one token, and the caller can ask for an explicit scope set (20). Tokens are fetched per app, user or tenant, and the management search endpoints page, but there's no list of a user's connections in the agent SDK (15). The Agent Auth SDK turns a 404 into ConnectionAuthorizationRequired carrying a connect URL, and a 401 or 403 into PolicyDenied (18). Fetching the latest token is safe to repeat and forceRefresh is opt-in, but token deletion can't be undone and has no confirmation (12). Backend SDKs in several languages and the Agent Auth SDK in Python and TypeScript, with few required fields (15). The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-ergonomics): - 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). - 20, pagination, filtering and output-size controls. - 20, actionable, documented error responses, codes and messages an agent can recover from. - 20, idempotency or safe retries, and for MCP the `readOnlyHint` and `destructiveHint` annotations. - 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. ## 3. Schema & documentation, 82 out of 100, up to 2.9 more on the total Why it scored 82: A downloadable OpenAPI file (Descope_API.yaml), with reference pages for each Outbound App token endpoint (25). llms.txt and Markdown docs (10). The docs explain when to fetch a user token, a tenant token or a Resource token and why an agent should sign in as its own client (15). The reference lists typed request fields per endpoint, though we couldn't open the token endpoint pages on 2026-10-01 to check enums and constraints (12). Error handling is described mostly through the Agent Auth SDK's typed exceptions, and the API overview only says standard HTTP codes apply (10). The changelog sits on an ideas portal that renders nothing without JavaScript, and SDK release notes on GitHub fill the gap (10). The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-schema): APIs and MCP servers. - 25, a machine-readable contract (a public OpenAPI file or similar; for MCP, typed JSON Schema inputs on every tool). - 10, llms.txt or Markdown docs served for agents. - 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. - 0 to 15, typed inputs with enums, constraints and required fields, and no free-form JSON blobs. - 0 to 15, examples and documented error responses. - 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. ## 4. Transparency & trust, 70 out of 100, up to 2.6 more on the total Made of editorial 49, provenance 90. Why it scored 70: Closed platform under terms that name a Descope contracting entity in the US, Israel or the UK by customer location, with MIT SDKs (15). Privacy policy, a customer data processing amendment and full-disk encryption at rest are published, but the docs don't say how vaulted third-party tokens are encrypted (22). We found no deprecation policy or dated deprecation notices (0). Seven hosting regions are named, but we didn't find a public subprocessor list outside the trust centre (12). The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-transparency): - 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. - 0 to 30, data handling and retention statements that agree with each other (privacy policy, DPA, retention periods, subprocessors). - 0 to 20, a deprecation policy or notices with dates. - 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. Provenance checks not met in full (half of this category, computed from checked facts): - security.txt: not found (0 of 10) ## 5. Security & auth, 86 out of 100, up to 2.5 more on the total Why it scored 86: An agent signs in as its own OAuth client by client credentials, device code, CIBA or RFC 7523 JWT bearer, and Policies limit which tokens it can fetch, while a management key bypasses Policies and the SDK makes you opt in to use one (28). Policies are evaluated at issuance and exchange, the consent screen only shows scopes a policy permits, and CIBA can ask the user to approve (20). The API returns tokens, not untrusted content (10). Audit trail with streaming to S3, Datadog and New Relic, kept 1 week on Free and 1 month on Pro (12). SOC 2 Type 2, ISO 27001 and FedRAMP High claimed, external penetration tests and a vulnerability disclosure policy, but /.well-known/security.txt returns 404 and we found no bug bounty (16). The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-security): - 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. - 0 to 20, read-only or least-privilege modes, and confirmation or approval for destructive actions. - 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. - 0 to 15, audit logs or per-call visibility for the operator. - 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. ## 6. Maintenance & community, 76 out of 100, up to 2.1 more on the total Why it scored 76: @descope/node-sdk 2.17.0 on 7 September 2026 (30). Six node-sdk releases since 3 July 2026, from 2.12.1 to 2.17.0 (20). Closed platform whose changelog portal didn't render for us, and the Agent Auth SDK repository has 18 open pull requests and no commit since 2 July 2026 (8). The backend SDKs are current, but the Agent Auth SDK is still 0.1.0 (12). CI and release-please on the Agent Auth SDK, with pull requests piling up (6). The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-maintenance): - 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. - 20, at least three releases or dated changelog entries in the last 90 days. - 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. - 15, presence in the official MCP registry under a verified namespace (MCP servers), or current official SDKs (APIs and models). - 10, package health, current dependencies and CI. Models are read for deprecation notice periods and model churn rather than release counts. ## What we couldn't check What 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. - We couldn't read the changelog portal or the per-endpoint reference pages for the token API on 2026-10-01. - How vaulted third-party tokens are encrypted and in which region they are stored for a given project. - Whether Descope runs a bug bounty, and where its subprocessor list is published outside the trust centre. ## Weaknesses - No tool catalogue, so you write every provider call yourself - The Agent Auth SDK is 0.1.0 with 18 open pull requests and no commit since 2 July 2026 - The docs don't say how vaulted tokens are encrypted - No security.txt and no deprecation policy we could find - Paid plans are billed annually, from $249 a month ## What costs an agent a turn today The notes we give agents before they call it. Each one is a workaround an agent shouldn't need. - Sign the agent in as its own OAuth client and let Policies scope it, instead of shipping a management key - Treat a 404 from the token endpoint as a missing connection and send the user to the connect URL - Back off for the full window on a 429, 60 seconds for most management endpoints - Ask for a tenant token, not a user token, for organisation-wide API keys - Budget monthly active tokens, since every token fetched and used counts once a month ## What the review panel asked for - Released Agent Auth SDK - Changelog on docs domain - a changelog readable without JavaScript - a dated deprecation policy - A monthly paid plan - Write the 404 and 401 meanings into the API reference - changelog on docs site - List error codes for the token endpoints - Provider setup via API - document vault encryption - publish a security.txt ## When it's done Send 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.