{
  "fixes": {
    "slug": "opentable",
    "name": "OpenTable APIs",
    "listing": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/opentable",
    "markdown": "# Fix list: OpenTable APIs\n\nFrom Anchor Terminal's listing at https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/opentable, the October 2026 research run, assessed 14 October 2026. Grade E, 38.6 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 OpenTable APIs: work through the items below in the product, its docs and its public pages. Each category gives the reason for its score, with the points each checklist item earned, and the checklist itself, so the gap is the items that earned less than their points. Change the product, not the wording, and keep a note of what you changed and where it's published.\n\n## 1. Reliability, 35 out of 100, up to 13 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 35: Graded as a hosted API. The docs require partners to subscribe to status.opentable.com, a StatusDashboard page, but its components and history load by script and our reader saw only the frame, so it earns part of the line (10 of 20). No readable incident history (5). Rate limits exist but are not published, and the docs send partners to their OpenTable representative (0). 429 appears in the error tables, and an X-Request-Id header on every POST, PUT and PATCH is documented for idempotent retries (10 of 15). No SLA, and the Platform Policy disclaims reliability and availability (0). The booking APIs are not marked beta or preview (10). Total 35.\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-reliability):\n\nHosted APIs, MCP servers, models and platforms.\n\n- 20, a public status page with component history (Statuspage, Instatus, BetterStack or the vendor's own).\n- 0 to 30, the incident record for the last 90 days on that page. 30 for a clean record or trivial incidents only, 20 for minor incidents only, 10 for one major outage (an hour or more of a core API down, or errors across the board), 0 for several. 5 when there's no history we could read, and the note says so.\n- 15, rate limits documented with numbers.\n- 15, documented 429 or overload handling (Retry-After, backoff guidance), and idempotency keys or safe-retry guidance where writes are involved.\n- 10, an SLA published for any paid tier.\n- 10, the surface agents use is generally available, not beta or preview.\n\nLocal packages, SDKs, frameworks and stdio MCP servers.\n\n- 20, installs from an official package with supported runtimes stated.\n- 25, a public CI and test suite, passing on the default branch.\n- 0 to 25, open crash or regression issues relative to activity (25 for few and handled, 0 for many, old and unanswered).\n- 15, semver discipline and breaking changes called out in a changelog.\n- 15, version 1.0 or later, or declared stable.\n\nProtocols are read from their reference implementations, the public facilitators or servers, spec stability and test vectors.\n\n## 2. Payments \u0026 pricing, 5 out of 100, up to 11.9 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 5: No x402, MPP or L402 (0). No API prices published. Terms are set in each partner's agreement (0). A sandbox is granted after the application is approved, with no card mentioned, which gives part of the line (5 of 20). A person applies through a form and waits for review (0). Total 5.\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-payments):\n\nThe published rubric, also on the [x402 page](https://www.anchorterminal.com/x402/).\n\n- 40, a machine payment protocol (x402, MPP or L402) on the tool's own endpoints. 10 to 30 when it covers only some endpoints or only goes through a third party, and the note says which.\n- 20, per-call or per-unit pricing published without a login. 10 for public plan-only pricing, 0 for \"contact sales\" or prices behind a login.\n- 20, a free tier or trial that doesn't need a card.\n- 20, autonomous onboarding, meaning an agent can get access without a person signing up in a browser (keyless use, x402, a programmatic key API).\n\nPayment platforms and agent wallets rarely charge for their own API over a machine protocol, so the first line has steps for them, and the highest one that applies counts. 40 when x402, MPP or L402 runs on all their own endpoints, 30 when it runs on part of their own API, 25 when their merchants can accept one, 20 for running a facilitator, 15 for paying as a buyer, and 0 when the only protocol is their own. Merchant acceptance sits above a facilitator because the platform's own customers can charge agents through it, while a facilitator settles for sellers who wire up the protocol themselves. The counter-argument (a facilitator does more for the protocol as a whole) has a point. Each note says which step applied.\n\nOpen-source software you run yourself is scored on its hosted or paid option if it has one. A free, self-hosted package with nothing to buy gets 20, 20 and 20 for the last three lines, and 0 to 40 for the first only if it ships a payment protocol.\n\n## 3. Security \u0026 auth, 33 out of 100, up to 11.7 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 33: OAuth 2.0 client credentials per partner, with the secret in the Authorization header and rotation on OpenTable's request. No scopes are documented for the client credentials grant, so the token's reach is set by the partner's agreement (20). Credentials are issued per API and per partner, and restaurants opt in through the onboarding flow, but no read-only token was found (8). Responses carry diner notes, special-relationship notes and reviews written by people, with no injection guidance (3). No audit log or per-call view for partners was found (0). TLS 1.3 only from 6 October 2025. www.opentable.com did not answer, so security.txt and any disclosure programme were unchecked, and no SOC 2 or ISO 27001 statement was found in the docs (2). Total 33.\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## 4. Maintenance \u0026 community, 5 out of 100, up to 8.3 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 5: The change log has three undated entries (Spreedly support in Booking API v2, Stripe details for backward-compatible bookings, service fees) and one dated notice, TLS 1.3 only from 6 October 2025. The newest dated change is over 180 days old (0). Fewer than three dated changes in 90 days (0). Support runs through each partner's OpenTable representative, and the Platform Policy says OpenTable has no obligation to provide support (5 of 15). No official SDKs (0). No package to assess (0). Total 5.\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## 5. Schema \u0026 documentation, 61 out of 100, up to 6.3 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 61: No OpenAPI file. The public Postman collection of 87 requests can be downloaded as JSON from the documenter and carries request shapes and example responses (15 of 25). No llms.txt or Markdown copies for agents (0). Long descriptions with use cases that say which API fits which job, such as Consumer API for affiliates and restaurant websites and In-House for voice AI, and which booking links each partner type may use (15). Field tables give types and say which fields are required, with some enumerations such as table attributes, but much is prose (10). Example requests and responses, plus common-error tables naming business-rule codes per endpoint (13). Versioned paths (v1, v2, v3) and a change log section, though only one entry carries a date (8 of 15). Total 61.\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## 6. Transparency \u0026 trust, 42 out of 100, up to 5.1 more on the total\n\nMade of editorial 20, provenance 64.\n\nWhy it scored 42: Closed service. The Platform Policy is public, but the partner agreement it relies on is not, and the terms page linked from the docs could not be read because www.opentable.com did not answer (10 of 30). The Platform Policy requires partners to protect data and limits its use to the agreement. The privacy policy was unread, so no retention periods were checked (5 of 30). Consumer API v1 has no scheduled deprecation date, while the policy allows changes with or without notice and says individual notices are not given (5 of 20). No subprocessor list or data locations found (0). Total 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- Legal entity named: not found (0 of 20)\n- Terms of service: published, but our reader couldn't read it (7 of 10)\n- Privacy policy: published, but our reader couldn't read it (7 of 10)\n- security.txt: could not be fetched (0 of 10)\n\n## 7. Agent ergonomics, 69 out of 100, up to 5 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 69: Availability takes a party size, a start time and forward and backward windows up to 720 minutes, and experiences are opt-in. Guest lists take limit (up to 2,000) and offset. No field selection (15). Pagination with hasNextPage and nextPageUrl on sync endpoints, filters such as updated_after (15). Error tables pair HTTP codes with named reasons like DinerHasOverlappingReservations and NotFarEnoughInAdvance (16). X-Request-Id gives idempotent writes, and slot locks can be released with DELETE (18). A booking takes three calls (search, lock, make) and there are no SDKs (5). Total 69.\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## 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: www.opentable.com timed out on every request, so robots.txt, the terms and conditions, the privacy policy, security.txt, the become-a-partner page and the legal entity were not read\n- unchecked: status.opentable.com components and incident history, which load by script\n- Rate limits per endpoint, which the docs leave to each partner's representative\n- Whether OAuth client credentials can be limited to read-only or to one API family\n- Whether the Platform Policy's ban on using the APIs on behalf of third parties allows an agent booking for its own user, which depends on the partner agreement\n\n## Weaknesses\n\n- Access needs an application, review by the partnerships team and an agreement, with no self-serve credentials\n- Rate limits are not published and come from the OpenTable representative\n- No OpenAPI file, llms.txt or SDK, only a Postman collection\n- The change log has one dated entry, the TLS 1.3 notice of 6 October 2025\n- The Platform Policy allows API changes and suspension with or without notice and promises no support\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- Lock the slot before calling Make Reservation, since the lock and its reservation_token expire within 5 minutes\n- Send a unique X-Request-Id on every POST, PUT and PATCH so a retried booking is not duplicated\n- Fetch booking and cancellation policies before booking and show any deposit, hold or service fee to the diner\n- Use the Consumer API for diner bookings and the In-House Booking API only for a restaurant's own voice or phone channel\n- Ask the OpenTable representative for the rate limit of each endpoint before going live\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": "E",
    "score": 38.6,
    "assessed": "2026-10-14",
    "run": "October 2026 research run",
    "categories": [
      {
        "key": "reliability",
        "name": "Reliability",
        "score": 35,
        "maxGain": 13,
        "reason": "Graded as a hosted API. The docs require partners to subscribe to status.opentable.com, a StatusDashboard page, but its components and history load by script and our reader saw only the frame, so it earns part of the line (10 of 20). No readable incident history (5). Rate limits exist but are not published, and the docs send partners to their OpenTable representative (0). 429 appears in the error tables, and an X-Request-Id header on every POST, PUT and PATCH is documented for idempotent retries (10 of 15). No SLA, and the Platform Policy disclaims reliability and availability (0). The booking APIs are not marked beta or preview (10). Total 35.",
        "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": 5,
        "maxGain": 11.9,
        "reason": "No x402, MPP or L402 (0). No API prices published. Terms are set in each partner's agreement (0). A sandbox is granted after the application is approved, with no card mentioned, which gives part of the line (5 of 20). A person applies through a form and waits for review (0). Total 5.",
        "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": 33,
        "maxGain": 11.7,
        "reason": "OAuth 2.0 client credentials per partner, with the secret in the Authorization header and rotation on OpenTable's request. No scopes are documented for the client credentials grant, so the token's reach is set by the partner's agreement (20). Credentials are issued per API and per partner, and restaurants opt in through the onboarding flow, but no read-only token was found (8). Responses carry diner notes, special-relationship notes and reviews written by people, with no injection guidance (3). No audit log or per-call view for partners was found (0). TLS 1.3 only from 6 October 2025. www.opentable.com did not answer, so security.txt and any disclosure programme were unchecked, and no SOC 2 or ISO 27001 statement was found in the docs (2). Total 33.",
        "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": "maintenance",
        "name": "Maintenance \u0026 community",
        "score": 5,
        "maxGain": 8.3,
        "reason": "The change log has three undated entries (Spreedly support in Booking API v2, Stripe details for backward-compatible bookings, service fees) and one dated notice, TLS 1.3 only from 6 October 2025. The newest dated change is over 180 days old (0). Fewer than three dated changes in 90 days (0). Support runs through each partner's OpenTable representative, and the Platform Policy says OpenTable has no obligation to provide support (5 of 15). No official SDKs (0). No package to assess (0). Total 5.",
        "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": "schema",
        "name": "Schema \u0026 documentation",
        "score": 61,
        "maxGain": 6.3,
        "reason": "No OpenAPI file. The public Postman collection of 87 requests can be downloaded as JSON from the documenter and carries request shapes and example responses (15 of 25). No llms.txt or Markdown copies for agents (0). Long descriptions with use cases that say which API fits which job, such as Consumer API for affiliates and restaurant websites and In-House for voice AI, and which booking links each partner type may use (15). Field tables give types and say which fields are required, with some enumerations such as table attributes, but much is prose (10). Example requests and responses, plus common-error tables naming business-rule codes per endpoint (13). Versioned paths (v1, v2, v3) and a change log section, though only one entry carries a date (8 of 15). Total 61.",
        "checklist": [
          "APIs and MCP servers.",
          "- 25, a machine-readable contract (a public OpenAPI file or similar; for MCP, typed JSON Schema inputs on every tool).\n- 10, llms.txt or Markdown docs served for agents.\n- 0 to 20, descriptions that say what a tool is for, when to use it and when not to, read from the tool definitions in the source or the API reference.\n- 0 to 15, typed inputs with enums, constraints and required fields, and no free-form JSON blobs.\n- 0 to 15, examples and documented error responses.\n- 15, versioning and a public changelog.",
          "Models are read from the API reference, the OpenAPI file, llms.txt, the structured-output and tool-use docs and the model cards. Frameworks from docs a model can follow, typed interfaces, examples and the API reference."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-schema"
      },
      {
        "key": "transparency",
        "name": "Transparency \u0026 trust",
        "score": 42,
        "maxGain": 5.1,
        "reason": "Closed service. The Platform Policy is public, but the partner agreement it relies on is not, and the terms page linked from the docs could not be read because www.opentable.com did not answer (10 of 30). The Platform Policy requires partners to protect data and limits its use to the agreement. The privacy policy was unread, so no retention periods were checked (5 of 30). Consumer API v1 has no scheduled deprecation date, while the policy allows changes with or without notice and says individual notices are not given (5 of 20). No subprocessor list or data locations found (0). Total 20.",
        "blend": "editorial 20, provenance 64",
        "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"
      },
      {
        "key": "ergonomics",
        "name": "Agent ergonomics",
        "score": 69,
        "maxGain": 5,
        "reason": "Availability takes a party size, a start time and forward and backward windows up to 720 minutes, and experiences are opt-in. Guest lists take limit (up to 2,000) and offset. No field selection (15). Pagination with hasNextPage and nextPageUrl on sync endpoints, filters such as updated_after (15). Error tables pair HTTP codes with named reasons like DinerHasOverlappingReservations and NotFarEnoughInAdvance (16). X-Request-Id gives idempotent writes, and slot locks can be released with DELETE (18). A booking takes three calls (search, lock, make) and there are no SDKs (5). Total 69.",
        "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"
      }
    ],
    "provenance": [
      {
        "label": "Legal entity named",
        "value": "not found",
        "points": 0,
        "max": 20
      },
      {
        "label": "Terms of service",
        "value": "published, but our reader couldn't read it",
        "points": 7,
        "max": 10
      },
      {
        "label": "Privacy policy",
        "value": "published, but our reader couldn't read it",
        "points": 7,
        "max": 10
      },
      {
        "label": "security.txt",
        "value": "could not be fetched",
        "points": 0,
        "max": 10
      }
    ],
    "unchecked": [
      "unchecked: www.opentable.com timed out on every request, so robots.txt, the terms and conditions, the privacy policy, security.txt, the become-a-partner page and the legal entity were not read",
      "unchecked: status.opentable.com components and incident history, which load by script",
      "Rate limits per endpoint, which the docs leave to each partner's representative",
      "Whether OAuth client credentials can be limited to read-only or to one API family",
      "Whether the Platform Policy's ban on using the APIs on behalf of third parties allows an agent booking for its own user, which depends on the partner agreement"
    ],
    "weaknesses": [
      "Access needs an application, review by the partnerships team and an agreement, with no self-serve credentials",
      "Rate limits are not published and come from the OpenTable representative",
      "No OpenAPI file, llms.txt or SDK, only a Postman collection",
      "The change log has one dated entry, the TLS 1.3 notice of 6 October 2025",
      "The Platform Policy allows API changes and suspension with or without notice and promises no support"
    ],
    "agentNotes": [
      "Lock the slot before calling Make Reservation, since the lock and its reservation_token expire within 5 minutes",
      "Send a unique X-Request-Id on every POST, PUT and PATCH so a retried booking is not duplicated",
      "Fetch booking and cancellation policies before booking and show any deposit, hold or service fee to the diner",
      "Use the Consumer API for diner bookings and the In-House Booking API only for a restaurant's own voice or phone channel",
      "Ask the OpenTable representative for the rate limit of each endpoint before going live"
    ],
    "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"
  }
}