{
  "fixes": {
    "slug": "eat-app",
    "name": "Eat App Partner API",
    "listing": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/eat-app",
    "markdown": "# Fix list: Eat App Partner API\n\nFrom Anchor Terminal's listing at https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/eat-app, the October 2026 research run, assessed 14 October 2026. Grade D, 53.4 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 Eat App Partner 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. Payments \u0026 pricing, 15 out of 100, up to 10.6 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 15: No x402, MPP or L402 (0). Table management plan prices are public, but API access sits in the Enterprise column priced through sales (10 of 20). A $0 plan and a 14-day trial exist, and partners get a sandbox host, but whether either includes API or MCP access without a card was not established (5 of 20). A person applies for a partnership or signs in to approve the MCP connection (0). Total 15.\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## 2. Security \u0026 auth, 43 out of 100, up to 10 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 43: The Partner API uses a long-term Bearer key issued by Eat App support, and a login endpoint also accepts the partner's email and password for a 24-hour token. The Restaurant MCP uses OAuth with dynamic client registration, PKCE, refresh tokens, a revocation endpoint and one `mcp` scope. No scoped API keys or rotation guidance were found (20 of 30). Partners see only restaurants whose partnership is active, Concierge calls are scoped by group and restaurant headers, and the MCP server is read-only (12 of 20). Responses carry guest notes and reviews written by people, with no injection guidance (3). The partner portal shows the reservations and guests a partner created, which gives some operator visibility (5 of 15). No security.txt on any Eat App host, and the trust centre at trust.eatapp.co loaded only its title, so no certification or disclosure programme was confirmed (3 of 20). Total 43.\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## 3. Schema \u0026 documentation, 59 out of 100, up to 6.7 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 59: No OpenAPI file. The Partner API (23 requests) and Concierge API (41 requests) are public Postman collections that download as JSON, with request bodies and example responses (12 of 25). No llms.txt or Markdown copies (0). Each request has a parameter table and notes on behaviour, such as legacy endpoints, the 24-hour include_tables limit and locked cancelled bookings, with little when-not-to-use guidance (12 of 20). Types, required flags and the reservation status list are given in tables rather than a schema (10 of 15). Example requests and responses, the JSON:API error format and named codes such as selected_tables_unavailable, but few per-endpoint error lists (10 of 15). v2 in the path and a dated changelog with entries from November 2023 to 13 October 2026 (15). Total 59.\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## 4. Agent ergonomics, 66 out of 100, up to 5.5 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 66: limit defaults to 30 with a maximum of 100, and table detail is opt-in through include_tables. No field selection (15). page and limit, with filters by restaurant, date, status and partner IDs (16). JSON:API error objects with codes, and a documented 429 body (12 of 20). idempotency_token on Create Reservation returns the earlier success for a repeat (18 of 20). No SDKs. A booking needs seven fields (5 of 15). Total 66.\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## 5. Maintenance \u0026 community, 40 out of 100, up to 5.3 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 40: The newest API changelog entry is 13 October 2026, adding table-level availability and table_ids on booking (30). Two dated entries in the last 90 days, 13 October and 21 July 2026, short of three (0). A dated changelog, a help centre and a support email, with no public issue tracker (10 of 15). No official SDKs (0). No package to assess (0). Total 40.\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## 6. Reliability, 78 out of 100, up to 4.4 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 78: Graded as a hosted API. status.eatapp.co on Better Stack with separate Partner API, Concierge API and Restaurant API components and an incident page (20). In the 90 days to 14 October 2026 one incident, \"Partner API and Concierge API are down\", resolved on 12 August 2026 at 11:31 UTC. Its length isn't shown, but the page gives the Partner API 99.994 per cent uptime over 90 days, under ten minutes of downtime, so we read it as minor (20). 60 requests a minute on every endpoint (15). The 429 body is documented with a wait until the next minute, and Create Reservation takes an idempotency_token for safe retries, though no Retry-After header is documented (13 of 15). No SLA found (0). v2 is generally available (10). Total 78.\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## 7. Transparency \u0026 trust, 52 out of 100, up to 4.2 more on the total\n\nMade of editorial 32, provenance 71.\n\nWhy it scored 52: Closed service with public terms of service, effective 10 September 2025, entered into by EAT APPLICATION DMCC and referring to an agreement with its licensee Swiggy Limited (15 of 30). The privacy policy names the same entity, describes GDPR rights and says personal data is deleted or anonymised once its purpose ends, without fixed periods. No DPA was found (12 of 30). The old availability endpoint is marked legacy in the changelog, without a removal date (5 of 20). No subprocessor list or data locations were found, and the trust centre did not render for our reader (0). Total 32.\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: eatapp.co, no registry record we could read (0 of 15)\n- Terms of service: read, states 6 of the 7 things a reader expects, and has 1 clause that costs points (7.1 of 10)\n- Privacy policy: read, states 6 of the 8 things a reader expects (8.5 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- Which tools the Restaurant MCP exposes. The tool list needs a signed-in session and is not published\n- Whether a Partner API booking can carry a deposit or card guarantee, or how restaurants that require one handle API bookings\n- Which plans include API access. The pricing table marks only Enterprise, while the same page also lists API and webhooks access as an add-on\n- unchecked: the trust centre at trust.eatapp.co, which loads by script and showed only its title\n- unchecked: the registration date of eatapp.co, as RDAP did not answer\n- Coverage by country. The help centre names regions in the partner portal but no public list was found\n\n## Weaknesses\n\n- A booking channel can book only at restaurants whose partnership Eat App has activated\n- API access sits in the Enterprise column of the pricing page, priced through sales\n- No OpenAPI file, llms.txt or SDK, only Postman collections\n- A login endpoint accepts the partner's email and password for a 24-hour token\n- No security.txt, and the trust centre content did not load for our reader\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- Send a unique idempotency_token with each new booking so a retry returns the first result\n- Use POST /partners/v2/availability/range, not the legacy availability endpoint\n- Keep include_tables ranges to 24 hours or less and pass covers with it\n- Stay under 60 requests a minute and wait for the next minute after a 429\n- Cancel by PATCH with status canceled, after which the reservation can no longer change\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": "D",
    "score": 53.4,
    "assessed": "2026-10-14",
    "run": "October 2026 research run",
    "categories": [
      {
        "key": "payments",
        "name": "Payments \u0026 pricing",
        "score": 15,
        "maxGain": 10.6,
        "reason": "No x402, MPP or L402 (0). Table management plan prices are public, but API access sits in the Enterprise column priced through sales (10 of 20). A $0 plan and a 14-day trial exist, and partners get a sandbox host, but whether either includes API or MCP access without a card was not established (5 of 20). A person applies for a partnership or signs in to approve the MCP connection (0). Total 15.",
        "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": "security",
        "name": "Security \u0026 auth",
        "score": 43,
        "maxGain": 10,
        "reason": "The Partner API uses a long-term Bearer key issued by Eat App support, and a login endpoint also accepts the partner's email and password for a 24-hour token. The Restaurant MCP uses OAuth with dynamic client registration, PKCE, refresh tokens, a revocation endpoint and one `mcp` scope. No scoped API keys or rotation guidance were found (20 of 30). Partners see only restaurants whose partnership is active, Concierge calls are scoped by group and restaurant headers, and the MCP server is read-only (12 of 20). Responses carry guest notes and reviews written by people, with no injection guidance (3). The partner portal shows the reservations and guests a partner created, which gives some operator visibility (5 of 15). No security.txt on any Eat App host, and the trust centre at trust.eatapp.co loaded only its title, so no certification or disclosure programme was confirmed (3 of 20). Total 43.",
        "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": "schema",
        "name": "Schema \u0026 documentation",
        "score": 59,
        "maxGain": 6.7,
        "reason": "No OpenAPI file. The Partner API (23 requests) and Concierge API (41 requests) are public Postman collections that download as JSON, with request bodies and example responses (12 of 25). No llms.txt or Markdown copies (0). Each request has a parameter table and notes on behaviour, such as legacy endpoints, the 24-hour include_tables limit and locked cancelled bookings, with little when-not-to-use guidance (12 of 20). Types, required flags and the reservation status list are given in tables rather than a schema (10 of 15). Example requests and responses, the JSON:API error format and named codes such as selected_tables_unavailable, but few per-endpoint error lists (10 of 15). v2 in the path and a dated changelog with entries from November 2023 to 13 October 2026 (15). Total 59.",
        "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": "ergonomics",
        "name": "Agent ergonomics",
        "score": 66,
        "maxGain": 5.5,
        "reason": "limit defaults to 30 with a maximum of 100, and table detail is opt-in through include_tables. No field selection (15). page and limit, with filters by restaurant, date, status and partner IDs (16). JSON:API error objects with codes, and a documented 429 body (12 of 20). idempotency_token on Create Reservation returns the earlier success for a repeat (18 of 20). No SDKs. A booking needs seven fields (5 of 15). Total 66.",
        "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": "maintenance",
        "name": "Maintenance \u0026 community",
        "score": 40,
        "maxGain": 5.3,
        "reason": "The newest API changelog entry is 13 October 2026, adding table-level availability and table_ids on booking (30). Two dated entries in the last 90 days, 13 October and 21 July 2026, short of three (0). A dated changelog, a help centre and a support email, with no public issue tracker (10 of 15). No official SDKs (0). No package to assess (0). Total 40.",
        "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": "reliability",
        "name": "Reliability",
        "score": 78,
        "maxGain": 4.4,
        "reason": "Graded as a hosted API. status.eatapp.co on Better Stack with separate Partner API, Concierge API and Restaurant API components and an incident page (20). In the 90 days to 14 October 2026 one incident, \"Partner API and Concierge API are down\", resolved on 12 August 2026 at 11:31 UTC. Its length isn't shown, but the page gives the Partner API 99.994 per cent uptime over 90 days, under ten minutes of downtime, so we read it as minor (20). 60 requests a minute on every endpoint (15). The 429 body is documented with a wait until the next minute, and Create Reservation takes an idempotency_token for safe retries, though no Retry-After header is documented (13 of 15). No SLA found (0). v2 is generally available (10). Total 78.",
        "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": "transparency",
        "name": "Transparency \u0026 trust",
        "score": 52,
        "maxGain": 4.2,
        "reason": "Closed service with public terms of service, effective 10 September 2025, entered into by EAT APPLICATION DMCC and referring to an agreement with its licensee Swiggy Limited (15 of 30). The privacy policy names the same entity, describes GDPR rights and says personal data is deleted or anonymised once its purpose ends, without fixed periods. No DPA was found (12 of 30). The old availability endpoint is marked legacy in the changelog, without a removal date (5 of 20). No subprocessor list or data locations were found, and the trust centre did not render for our reader (0). Total 32.",
        "blend": "editorial 32, provenance 71",
        "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": "eatapp.co, no registry record we could read",
        "points": 0,
        "max": 15
      },
      {
        "label": "Terms of service",
        "value": "read, states 6 of the 7 things a reader expects, and has 1 clause that costs points",
        "points": 7.1,
        "max": 10
      },
      {
        "label": "Privacy policy",
        "value": "read, states 6 of the 8 things a reader expects",
        "points": 8.5,
        "max": 10
      },
      {
        "label": "security.txt",
        "value": "not found",
        "points": 0,
        "max": 10
      }
    ],
    "unchecked": [
      "Which tools the Restaurant MCP exposes. The tool list needs a signed-in session and is not published",
      "Whether a Partner API booking can carry a deposit or card guarantee, or how restaurants that require one handle API bookings",
      "Which plans include API access. The pricing table marks only Enterprise, while the same page also lists API and webhooks access as an add-on",
      "unchecked: the trust centre at trust.eatapp.co, which loads by script and showed only its title",
      "unchecked: the registration date of eatapp.co, as RDAP did not answer",
      "Coverage by country. The help centre names regions in the partner portal but no public list was found"
    ],
    "weaknesses": [
      "A booking channel can book only at restaurants whose partnership Eat App has activated",
      "API access sits in the Enterprise column of the pricing page, priced through sales",
      "No OpenAPI file, llms.txt or SDK, only Postman collections",
      "A login endpoint accepts the partner's email and password for a 24-hour token",
      "No security.txt, and the trust centre content did not load for our reader"
    ],
    "agentNotes": [
      "Send a unique idempotency_token with each new booking so a retry returns the first result",
      "Use POST /partners/v2/availability/range, not the legacy availability endpoint",
      "Keep include_tables ranges to 24 hours or less and pass covers with it",
      "Stay under 60 requests a minute and wait for the next minute after a 429",
      "Cancel by PATCH with status canceled, after which the reservation can no longer change"
    ],
    "recheck": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/builders/#disputes"
  },
  "meta": {
    "attribution": "Anchor Terminal (https://www.anchorterminal.com)",
    "docs": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/docs/",
    "generatedAt": "2026-10-14",
    "license": "CC-BY-4.0",
    "method": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/",
    "methodology": "0.4",
    "openapi": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/openapi.json",
    "preview": false,
    "run": "2026-10-01",
    "runLabel": "October 2026 research run"
  }
}