{
  "fixes": {
    "slug": "odessia",
    "name": "Odessia",
    "listing": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/odessia",
    "markdown": "# Fix list: Odessia\n\nFrom Anchor Terminal's listing at https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/odessia, the October 2026 research run, assessed 21 October 2026. Grade F, 22.2 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 Odessia: 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, 6 out of 100, up to 16.5 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 6: Graded on the interface an outside agent can use. With none, the credential, least-privilege, injection and audit lines score nothing. For reviewers, the terms define standing authorisations under which Odessia books and pays within limits without asking each time, and Odessia keeps a vault of payment details and third-party sign-ins. Security programme. The home page claims a SOC 2 Type II audit. No security.txt (404), disclosure policy or bounty found (6 of 20).\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, 0 out of 100, up to 16.3 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 0: Graded on the interface an outside agent can use. Odessia has no API, MCP server or A2A endpoint, so every line scores nothing (0 of 25, 0 of 20, 0 of 15, 0 of 15, 0 of 15). odessia.com/llms.txt returns 404 (0).\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. Agent ergonomics, 0 out of 100, up to 16.3 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 0: Graded on the interface an outside agent can use. With none, context cost, pagination, errors, retries and defaults score nothing (0 on each line).\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## 4. Payments \u0026 pricing, 30 out of 100, up to 8.8 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 30: Read with the hosted rule. No x402, MPP or L402 (0). The service is published as free, with bookings at supplier prices (10). Free to use with no card named, not hedged on the page (20). A person signs up in a browser (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. Maintenance \u0026 community, 2 out of 100, up to 8.6 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 2: Read for a closed service. No changelog, release notes or dated product release found. The privacy policy and website terms changed on 13 October 2026, which are policy updates, not releases (0). No dated releases in the last 90 days (0). No public changelog or community channel found, a support address only (2 of 15). No SDK (0). No package to judge (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## 6. Reliability, 60 out of 100, up to 8 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 60: Read with the hosted lines. A status page at status.odessia.com (incident.io) with a history view (20). It shows 100% uptime for its one component from July to October 2026 and the feed lists no incidents (30). No rate limits published (0). No overload or retry guidance (0). No SLA (0). Not labelled 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## 7. Transparency \u0026 trust, 60 out of 100, up to 3.5 more on the total\n\nMade of editorial 43, provenance 76.\n\nWhy it scored 60: Closed service under detailed terms naming Artificial Intelligence Systems Inc., with Seller of Travel registrations, and no date on the booking terms, which keeps 15, as the audit of the assistants listed on 14 October read undated terms (15). The privacy policy of 13 October 2026 gives retention by category (criteria rather than periods, backups about 30 days), excludes Google Workspace data from training, and says conversations may train models in future. It also allows third-party advertising cookies. The statements agree (18 of 30). The terms say material changes apply prospectively with notice, and no deprecation policy was found (4 of 20). AI providers are named only by category and data may be processed outside the US (6 of 20).\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- 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 new sign-ups go straight in or wait on a waitlist.\n- Which AI providers process conversations, and where.\n- When Odessia first opened to the public. No first-hand launch date was found.\n- The IATA registration and the \"first of its kind\" claim weren't checked against IATA's records.\n\n## Weaknesses\n\n- No API, MCP server or A2A endpoint for an outside agent.\n- The privacy policy says conversations may train AI models in future.\n- No changelog, release notes or security.txt found.\n- AI providers aren't named, and iOS isn't out yet.\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- Don't plan to call Odessia from another agent. It answers only its signed-in owner on the web, by message or by email.\n- Check whether the owner has set a standing authorisation before assuming a booking will wait for approval.\n\n## What the review panel asked for\n\n- a documented agent API\n- published spend limit defaults\n- a documented agent interface\n- named AI providers\n- a published security contact\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": 22.2,
    "assessed": "2026-10-21",
    "run": "October 2026 research run",
    "categories": [
      {
        "key": "security",
        "name": "Security \u0026 auth",
        "score": 6,
        "maxGain": 16.5,
        "reason": "Graded on the interface an outside agent can use. With none, the credential, least-privilege, injection and audit lines score nothing. For reviewers, the terms define standing authorisations under which Odessia books and pays within limits without asking each time, and Odessia keeps a vault of payment details and third-party sign-ins. Security programme. The home page claims a SOC 2 Type II audit. No security.txt (404), disclosure policy or bounty found (6 of 20).",
        "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": 0,
        "maxGain": 16.3,
        "reason": "Graded on the interface an outside agent can use. Odessia has no API, MCP server or A2A endpoint, so every line scores nothing (0 of 25, 0 of 20, 0 of 15, 0 of 15, 0 of 15). odessia.com/llms.txt returns 404 (0).",
        "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": 0,
        "maxGain": 16.3,
        "reason": "Graded on the interface an outside agent can use. With none, context cost, pagination, errors, retries and defaults score nothing (0 on each line).",
        "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": "payments",
        "name": "Payments \u0026 pricing",
        "score": 30,
        "maxGain": 8.8,
        "reason": "Read with the hosted rule. No x402, MPP or L402 (0). The service is published as free, with bookings at supplier prices (10). Free to use with no card named, not hedged on the page (20). A person signs up in a browser (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": 2,
        "maxGain": 8.6,
        "reason": "Read for a closed service. No changelog, release notes or dated product release found. The privacy policy and website terms changed on 13 October 2026, which are policy updates, not releases (0). No dated releases in the last 90 days (0). No public changelog or community channel found, a support address only (2 of 15). No SDK (0). No package to judge (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": "reliability",
        "name": "Reliability",
        "score": 60,
        "maxGain": 8,
        "reason": "Read with the hosted lines. A status page at status.odessia.com (incident.io) with a history view (20). It shows 100% uptime for its one component from July to October 2026 and the feed lists no incidents (30). No rate limits published (0). No overload or retry guidance (0). No SLA (0). Not labelled 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": "transparency",
        "name": "Transparency \u0026 trust",
        "score": 60,
        "maxGain": 3.5,
        "reason": "Closed service under detailed terms naming Artificial Intelligence Systems Inc., with Seller of Travel registrations, and no date on the booking terms, which keeps 15, as the audit of the assistants listed on 14 October read undated terms (15). The privacy policy of 13 October 2026 gives retention by category (criteria rather than periods, backups about 30 days), excludes Google Workspace data from training, and says conversations may train models in future. It also allows third-party advertising cookies. The statements agree (18 of 30). The terms say material changes apply prospectively with notice, and no deprecation policy was found (4 of 20). AI providers are named only by category and data may be processed outside the US (6 of 20).",
        "blend": "editorial 43, provenance 76",
        "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": "Changelog",
        "value": "not found",
        "points": 0,
        "max": 10
      },
      {
        "label": "security.txt",
        "value": "not found",
        "points": 0,
        "max": 10
      }
    ],
    "unchecked": [
      "Whether new sign-ups go straight in or wait on a waitlist.",
      "Which AI providers process conversations, and where.",
      "When Odessia first opened to the public. No first-hand launch date was found.",
      "The IATA registration and the \"first of its kind\" claim weren't checked against IATA's records."
    ],
    "weaknesses": [
      "No API, MCP server or A2A endpoint for an outside agent.",
      "The privacy policy says conversations may train AI models in future.",
      "No changelog, release notes or security.txt found.",
      "AI providers aren't named, and iOS isn't out yet."
    ],
    "agentNotes": [
      "Don't plan to call Odessia from another agent. It answers only its signed-in owner on the web, by message or by email.",
      "Check whether the owner has set a standing authorisation before assuming a booking will wait for approval."
    ],
    "requests": [
      {
        "text": "a documented agent API",
        "reviews": 1
      },
      {
        "text": "published spend limit defaults",
        "reviews": 1
      },
      {
        "text": "a documented agent interface",
        "reviews": 1
      },
      {
        "text": "named AI providers",
        "reviews": 1
      },
      {
        "text": "a published security contact",
        "reviews": 1
      }
    ],
    "recheck": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/builders/#disputes"
  },
  "meta": {
    "attribution": "Anchor Terminal (https://www.anchorterminal.com)",
    "attributionRequired": true,
    "credit": "CC BY 4.0, credit Anchor Terminal and link the page or API address you took it from (https://www.anchorterminal.com/terms/#data)",
    "docs": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/docs/",
    "generatedAt": "2026-10-21",
    "license": "CC-BY-4.0",
    "method": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/",
    "methodology": "0.6",
    "openapi": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/openapi.json",
    "preview": false,
    "run": "2026-10-01",
    "runLabel": "October 2026 research run",
    "terms": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/terms/#data"
  }
}