{
  "fixes": {
    "slug": "epsilla",
    "name": "Epsilla Vector Database",
    "listing": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/epsilla",
    "markdown": "# Fix list: Epsilla Vector Database\n\nFrom Anchor Terminal's listing at https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/epsilla, the October 2026 research run, assessed 1 October 2026. Grade F, 36 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 Epsilla Vector Database: 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. Security \u0026 auth, 25 out of 100, up to 13.1 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 25: One project API key in the `X-API-Key` header, with no scopes or read-only variant found. Self-hosted Docker has no auth by default (15). No read-only or least-privilege mode found (0). Stored text comes back as written and we found no prompt-injection guidance (5). No audit log found (0). A \"SOC 2 Type 1 Certified\" badge on the pricing page and a SECURITY.md in the Python client repo, but the Python cloud client sends every request with `verify=False`, and no security.txt was found per the 30 September check (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## 2. Schema \u0026 documentation, 36 out of 100, up to 10.4 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 36: No OpenAPI file found (0). llms.txt with 92 Markdown entries on GitBook (10). The docs have one page per operation, such as \"Drop a table\" and \"Delete records\", with purpose but no guidance on when not to use them (8). JSON bodies with typed fields, but filters are expression strings (7). Examples in the quick starts, and no documented error responses (6). `/api/v3` in the path, but the release notes stop at March 2025 and cover the agent platform, not the database (5).\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## 3. Reliability, 55 out of 100, up to 9 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 55: Better Stack status page at status.epsilla.com with four components, DISPATCH (the API host), ETL, RAG and LLM (20). 100% uptime bars across 30, 60 and 90 days and no incidents shown, but no incident log to read, so less than the full 30 (25). No rate limits published (0). No 429 or retry guidance found (0). The pricing page footer links an SLA document we didn't read, so we score it absent (0). The cloud vector database 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## 4. Payments \u0026 pricing, 30 out of 100, up to 8.8 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 30: No x402, MPP or L402 (0). Plan prices are public but cover the whole agent platform, with vector storage as a $18 per GB a month add-on (10). Free plan with \"No credit card required\" (20). A person signs up in the browser, and databases are created in the console (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## 5. Agent ergonomics, 47 out of 100, up to 8.6 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 47: No MCP server for the database. Queries take `limit` and a `response` field list to trim results (15). Filter expressions and `limit`, no documented pagination (12). Error responses aren't documented (5). No idempotency or upsert guidance found (5). Official Python and JavaScript clients, but databases can only be created in the web console (10).\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. Maintenance \u0026 community, 8 out of 100, up to 8.1 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 8: The last tag anywhere is cc-0.3.36 on the `cc` branch on 29 November 2025, and the last tag on main is v0.3.17 on 8 October 2025, both more than 180 days ago (0). Nothing since July (0). Release notes stop at March 2025 and the main branch's last commit was 16 November 2025 (2). pyepsilla 0.3.15 dates from 19 October 2025 and epsillajs 0.3.6 from 18 April 2024 (3). Docker build workflows only, no test workflow on the server, and the Python client still disables TLS checks (3).\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## 7. Transparency \u0026 trust, 65 out of 100, up to 3.1 more on the total\n\nMade of editorial 48, provenance 82.\n\nWhy it scored 65: GPL-3.0 (30). The privacy policy dates from 16 November 2023, names Epsilla, Inc. and AWS, and gives no retention period, DPA or data location (8). No deprecation notices, even though the company has moved its focus to an agent platform (0). No telemetry found in the server source. AWS is the only processor named (10).\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: epsilla.com, registered 2023-04-23 (3 years) (7 of 15)\n- security.txt: not found (0 of 10)\n\n## Deductions\n\nEach comes off the total. A fixed and documented problem counts for less at the next check.\n\n- The official Python cloud client, last released as pyepsilla 0.3.15 on 19 October 2025, sends every request to Epsilla Cloud with TLS certificate verification turned off (`verify=False`), so the `X-API-Key` header can be intercepted on a hostile network. Still unfixed on the main branch (https://github.com/epsilla-cloud/epsilla-python-client/blob/main/pyepsilla/cloud/client.py).\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- unchecked: the contents of the SLA document linked from the pricing page footer\n- Whether Epsilla still maintains the open-source vector database or will announce an end date\n- Whether the cloud API returns documented errors or rate-limit responses\n\n## Weaknesses\n\n- No tagged release since 29 November 2025 and no release notes since March 2025\n- The Python cloud client disables TLS certificate verification\n- Cloud databases can't be created through the API, so an agent can't provision one\n- No OpenAPI file, no documented errors and no published rate limits\n- Pricing is set by agent-platform plans, not by vector workload\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- List databases with `GET /api/v3/project/{project_id}/vectordb/list`, then load one to get its public endpoint\n- Hybrid search is assembled client-side with `as_search_engine().add_retriever(...).set_reranker(type=\"rrf\")`\n- If you use pyepsilla against the cloud, patch or wrap it to verify TLS\n- Ask a person to create the database in the console first. The API can't\n\n## What the review panel asked for\n\n- a stated end date\n- Price vector storage alone\n- State the free storage unit\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": 36,
    "assessed": "2026-10-01",
    "run": "October 2026 research run",
    "categories": [
      {
        "key": "security",
        "name": "Security \u0026 auth",
        "score": 25,
        "maxGain": 13.1,
        "reason": "One project API key in the `X-API-Key` header, with no scopes or read-only variant found. Self-hosted Docker has no auth by default (15). No read-only or least-privilege mode found (0). Stored text comes back as written and we found no prompt-injection guidance (5). No audit log found (0). A \"SOC 2 Type 1 Certified\" badge on the pricing page and a SECURITY.md in the Python client repo, but the Python cloud client sends every request with `verify=False`, and no security.txt was found per the 30 September check (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": "schema",
        "name": "Schema \u0026 documentation",
        "score": 36,
        "maxGain": 10.4,
        "reason": "No OpenAPI file found (0). llms.txt with 92 Markdown entries on GitBook (10). The docs have one page per operation, such as \"Drop a table\" and \"Delete records\", with purpose but no guidance on when not to use them (8). JSON bodies with typed fields, but filters are expression strings (7). Examples in the quick starts, and no documented error responses (6). `/api/v3` in the path, but the release notes stop at March 2025 and cover the agent platform, not the database (5).",
        "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": "reliability",
        "name": "Reliability",
        "score": 55,
        "maxGain": 9,
        "reason": "Better Stack status page at status.epsilla.com with four components, DISPATCH (the API host), ETL, RAG and LLM (20). 100% uptime bars across 30, 60 and 90 days and no incidents shown, but no incident log to read, so less than the full 30 (25). No rate limits published (0). No 429 or retry guidance found (0). The pricing page footer links an SLA document we didn't read, so we score it absent (0). The cloud vector database 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": 30,
        "maxGain": 8.8,
        "reason": "No x402, MPP or L402 (0). Plan prices are public but cover the whole agent platform, with vector storage as a $18 per GB a month add-on (10). Free plan with \"No credit card required\" (20). A person signs up in the browser, and databases are created in the console (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": "ergonomics",
        "name": "Agent ergonomics",
        "score": 47,
        "maxGain": 8.6,
        "reason": "No MCP server for the database. Queries take `limit` and a `response` field list to trim results (15). Filter expressions and `limit`, no documented pagination (12). Error responses aren't documented (5). No idempotency or upsert guidance found (5). Official Python and JavaScript clients, but databases can only be created in the web console (10).",
        "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": 8,
        "maxGain": 8.1,
        "reason": "The last tag anywhere is cc-0.3.36 on the `cc` branch on 29 November 2025, and the last tag on main is v0.3.17 on 8 October 2025, both more than 180 days ago (0). Nothing since July (0). Release notes stop at March 2025 and the main branch's last commit was 16 November 2025 (2). pyepsilla 0.3.15 dates from 19 October 2025 and epsillajs 0.3.6 from 18 April 2024 (3). Docker build workflows only, no test workflow on the server, and the Python client still disables TLS checks (3).",
        "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": "transparency",
        "name": "Transparency \u0026 trust",
        "score": 65,
        "maxGain": 3.1,
        "reason": "GPL-3.0 (30). The privacy policy dates from 16 November 2023, names Epsilla, Inc. and AWS, and gives no retention period, DPA or data location (8). No deprecation notices, even though the company has moved its focus to an agent platform (0). No telemetry found in the server source. AWS is the only processor named (10).",
        "blend": "editorial 48, provenance 82",
        "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": "epsilla.com, registered 2023-04-23 (3 years)",
        "points": 7,
        "max": 15
      },
      {
        "label": "security.txt",
        "value": "not found",
        "points": 0,
        "max": 10
      }
    ],
    "deductions": [
      "The official Python cloud client, last released as pyepsilla 0.3.15 on 19 October 2025, sends every request to Epsilla Cloud with TLS certificate verification turned off (`verify=False`), so the `X-API-Key` header can be intercepted on a hostile network. Still unfixed on the main branch (https://github.com/epsilla-cloud/epsilla-python-client/blob/main/pyepsilla/cloud/client.py)."
    ],
    "unchecked": [
      "unchecked: the contents of the SLA document linked from the pricing page footer",
      "Whether Epsilla still maintains the open-source vector database or will announce an end date",
      "Whether the cloud API returns documented errors or rate-limit responses"
    ],
    "weaknesses": [
      "No tagged release since 29 November 2025 and no release notes since March 2025",
      "The Python cloud client disables TLS certificate verification",
      "Cloud databases can't be created through the API, so an agent can't provision one",
      "No OpenAPI file, no documented errors and no published rate limits",
      "Pricing is set by agent-platform plans, not by vector workload"
    ],
    "agentNotes": [
      "List databases with `GET /api/v3/project/{project_id}/vectordb/list`, then load one to get its public endpoint",
      "Hybrid search is assembled client-side with `as_search_engine().add_retriever(...).set_reranker(type=\"rrf\")`",
      "If you use pyepsilla against the cloud, patch or wrap it to verify TLS",
      "Ask a person to create the database in the console first. The API can't"
    ],
    "requests": [
      {
        "text": "a stated end date",
        "reviews": 1
      },
      {
        "text": "Price vector storage alone",
        "reviews": 1
      },
      {
        "text": "State the free storage unit",
        "reviews": 1
      }
    ],
    "recheck": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/builders/#disputes"
  },
  "meta": {
    "attribution": "Anchor Terminal (https://www.anchorterminal.com)",
    "docs": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/docs/",
    "generatedAt": "2026-10-05",
    "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"
  }
}