{
  "fixes": {
    "slug": "payfit",
    "name": "PayFit",
    "listing": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/payfit",
    "markdown": "# Fix list: PayFit\n\nFrom Anchor Terminal's listing at https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/payfit, the October 2026 research run, assessed 9 October 2026. Grade C, 55.5 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 PayFit: 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, 10 out of 100, up to 11.3 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 10: Read with the hosted rubric. No x402, MPP or L402 (0). The French site publishes plan prices without a login. The API is included from Paie avancée at 27 € a collaborator a month plus a 49 € monthly subscription for 1 to 3 collaborators. The UK site lists no prices. That is public plan pricing with no per-call charge (10). The French site links a free signup and a first month free until 31 October 2026. Whether it needs a card was not established, and a sandbox company goes only to accepted partners, so the line scores as absent (0). A person signs up and an admin creates the key in the 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## 2. Security \u0026 auth, 51 out of 100, up to 8.6 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 51: Customer API keys are created by a company admin with chosen scopes and shown once. Partners use the OAuth 2.0 authorisation code grant with scopes fixed at approval, and the guide says a token can be revoked at any time. No token expiry or refresh token is documented (26 of 30). The webhook guide documents a call with `clientSecret` in the URL query string, which takes 10 off under the checklist (16). 22 scopes separate read from write and split out bank details, social security numbers and payslips. A contract created through the API stays unfinished until an HR admin completes it. `POST /absences` creates an absence already validated, with no approval step (13 of 20). The API returns names, job titles and other text entered by employees and admins, and no guidance on treating it as untrusted was found (3 of 15). The security page describes audit logs of authentication and data access kept for one year. No per-call log for the customer was found (5 of 15). The security page states ISO 27001 certification and a private bug bounty on HackerOne, and a contact page gives security@payfit.com with a PGP key. No security.txt, and the trust centre was unread (14 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## 3. Agent ergonomics, 51 out of 100, up to 8 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 51: List operations take `maxResults` (default 10, maximum 50), one operation takes a `fields` parameter, and the FAQ says responses carry ETags (14 of 25). `nextPageToken` paging on six list operations, with filters by email, contract, status and date range (16 of 20). Errors are JSON with an `error` string and `details`, such as 'Missing scope \"contracts:read\"'. Our one unauthenticated request answered 401 with a message and a `request_id`. No error catalogue was found (12 of 20). No idempotency keys were found for the five POST operations. This is an HTTP API with no MCP annotations to read (3 of 20). Most reads need only the company ID and a month. No official SDK was found, and the docs carry one JavaScript recipe (6 of 15).\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. Maintenance \u0026 community, 28 out of 100, up to 6.3 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 28: Closed service. The latest dated changelog entry is 23 July 2026, 78 days before the check (20 of 30). That is the only entry since 11 July 2026, so the line for three entries in 90 days is not met. The one before is 12 June 2026 (0). A public changelog exists. The docs send API questions to the help centres, which robots.txt closes to us, and the partner guides say new integration requests are not being accepted (5 of 15). No official SDK was found (0 of 15). Guide pages carry update dates between March and June 2026 and the OpenAPI file matches the reference pages (3 of 10).\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. Reliability, 79 out of 100, up to 4.2 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 79: Read with the hosted lines. https://status.payfit.com is a StatusPal page with ten components, including Run Payroll and Custom integrations (data synchronisation through custom APIs), and an incident history of 115 entries (20). Between 11 July and 9 October 2026 it lists two incidents, both on the help centre component. On 16 September support functions were degraded during a Salesforce incident, and on 17 September customer callbacks failed for 15 minutes in France. Neither touched payroll or the API (27 of 30). Limits are 50 requests a second for reads and 20 for writes, per client application (15). The rate limit page gives the 429 body and `X-RateLimit` headers and suggests wait and retry. No Retry-After header and no idempotency keys were found, and the API has five POST operations (7 of 15). No SLA was found. The terms say the services may be temporarily unavailable and that PayFit endeavours to maintain outside business hours (0). The spec is version 1.0 with no beta label (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## 6. Schema \u0026 documentation, 78 out of 100, up to 3.6 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 78: A public OpenAPI 3.0.0 file, linked from the FAQ, with 31 operations and 19 named schemas (25). llms.txt indexes a Markdown twin of every guide, reference and changelog page (10). All 31 operations have a description that names the required scope and the countries served, and a few state limits, such as a created collaborator not appearing in the app until it has a contract. None say when not to use an operation (12 of 20). 74 enums, 226 required lists and patterns on month parameters. `maxResults` is typed as a string and several error fields accept any object (11 of 15). 199 examples, and every operation documents 400, 401, 403 and 404 with an example body. No 429 or 5xx response is in the file (11 of 15). The changelog has ten entries, the latest dated 23 July 2026. The path carries no version, and the October 2024 entry removed a field in the same note that announced it (9 of 15).\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## 7. Transparency \u0026 trust, 70 out of 100, up to 2.6 more on the total\n\nMade of editorial 56, provenance 84.\n\nWhy it scored 70: Closed service. The general terms of service (15 June 2026 for the UK, 8 September 2026 for France) name the contracting entity and mention the API in the third-party services clause. No separate API terms were found (15 of 30). The privacy policy gives a retention table, such as six years after the contract ends for client data, and the terms set deletion 12 months after termination. The data processing rules in the appendix give ten days to object to a new sub-processor. A separate sub-processor page, last revised 31 May 2021, lists two companies while the appendix lists more, including Amazon Web Services (20 of 30). No deprecation policy was found. The changelog marks fields and one scope as deprecated without removal dates (5 of 20). The appendix lists sub-processors by purpose and region, and the security page states storage in France across three data centres (16 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- Terms of service: read, states 5 of the 7 things a reader expects, and has 2 clauses that cost points (4.3 of 10)\n- Privacy policy: read, states 7 of the 8 things a reader expects (9.3 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- unchecked: support.payfit.com, the help centre the docs name for API support, because its robots.txt disallows every path\n- unchecked: the trust centre at trust.payfit.com, a script-drawn Vanta page, so the certificate, penetration testing and any further sub-processor detail are unconfirmed\n- unchecked: the security white paper PDF linked from the security page\n- unchecked: whether the French signup at welcome.payfit.com needs a card, and whether a trial account can create an API key\n- unchecked: the official MCP registry. No MCP server was found on the vendor's pages read\n- unchecked: the webhook event list, which is hosted by Svix\n- Whether customer API keys expire or can be rotated. The guide says only that a key is shown once\n- Which UK plans include the API. The appendix lists it under Payroll Core, while a blog post says Standard or Premium\n- Whether a customer contract carries an SLA. None is in the public terms\n- Whether 429 responses carry a Retry-After header. The guide names only `X-RateLimit` headers\n- The terms pointed to are the UK entity's English text. French and Spanish clients contract under their own versions, and the Spanish one was not read\n- The sitemap at payfit.com/sitemap.xml was fetched before the terms, to find the terms page\n\n## Weaknesses\n\n- No operation runs, previews or approves a payroll. The API reads payroll status, payslips and accounting exports\n- The partner guides say PayFit is temporarily not accepting new integration requests, with no reopening date\n- The webhook guide documents a call that sends `clientSecret` and `clientId` in the URL query string\n- No idempotency keys, no official SDK and no MCP server were found in the reviewed documentation\n- Fifteen of 31 operations are France-only and two are UK-only, including contract creation and both accounting exports\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- Have a company admin create the key at app.payfit.com/integrations/hub/api with only the scopes the task needs. The key is shown once\n- POST the key to `https://oauth.payfit.com/introspect` to get `company_id`, then call `https://partner-api.payfit.com/companies/{companyId}/...`\n- Page lists with `nextPageToken` and `maxResults`, which defaults to 10 and stops at 50\n- Check before repeating a failed POST. There is no idempotency key, and `POST /absences` creates an absence that is already validated\n- A collaborator or contract created through the API stays incomplete until an HR admin finishes it in the PayFit app, and a new contract takes 2 to 5 minutes to appear\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": "C",
    "score": 55.5,
    "assessed": "2026-10-09",
    "run": "October 2026 research run",
    "categories": [
      {
        "key": "payments",
        "name": "Payments \u0026 pricing",
        "score": 10,
        "maxGain": 11.3,
        "reason": "Read with the hosted rubric. No x402, MPP or L402 (0). The French site publishes plan prices without a login. The API is included from Paie avancée at 27 € a collaborator a month plus a 49 € monthly subscription for 1 to 3 collaborators. The UK site lists no prices. That is public plan pricing with no per-call charge (10). The French site links a free signup and a first month free until 31 October 2026. Whether it needs a card was not established, and a sandbox company goes only to accepted partners, so the line scores as absent (0). A person signs up and an admin creates the key in the 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": "security",
        "name": "Security \u0026 auth",
        "score": 51,
        "maxGain": 8.6,
        "reason": "Customer API keys are created by a company admin with chosen scopes and shown once. Partners use the OAuth 2.0 authorisation code grant with scopes fixed at approval, and the guide says a token can be revoked at any time. No token expiry or refresh token is documented (26 of 30). The webhook guide documents a call with `clientSecret` in the URL query string, which takes 10 off under the checklist (16). 22 scopes separate read from write and split out bank details, social security numbers and payslips. A contract created through the API stays unfinished until an HR admin completes it. `POST /absences` creates an absence already validated, with no approval step (13 of 20). The API returns names, job titles and other text entered by employees and admins, and no guidance on treating it as untrusted was found (3 of 15). The security page describes audit logs of authentication and data access kept for one year. No per-call log for the customer was found (5 of 15). The security page states ISO 27001 certification and a private bug bounty on HackerOne, and a contact page gives security@payfit.com with a PGP key. No security.txt, and the trust centre was unread (14 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": "ergonomics",
        "name": "Agent ergonomics",
        "score": 51,
        "maxGain": 8,
        "reason": "List operations take `maxResults` (default 10, maximum 50), one operation takes a `fields` parameter, and the FAQ says responses carry ETags (14 of 25). `nextPageToken` paging on six list operations, with filters by email, contract, status and date range (16 of 20). Errors are JSON with an `error` string and `details`, such as 'Missing scope \"contracts:read\"'. Our one unauthenticated request answered 401 with a message and a `request_id`. No error catalogue was found (12 of 20). No idempotency keys were found for the five POST operations. This is an HTTP API with no MCP annotations to read (3 of 20). Most reads need only the company ID and a month. No official SDK was found, and the docs carry one JavaScript recipe (6 of 15).",
        "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": 28,
        "maxGain": 6.3,
        "reason": "Closed service. The latest dated changelog entry is 23 July 2026, 78 days before the check (20 of 30). That is the only entry since 11 July 2026, so the line for three entries in 90 days is not met. The one before is 12 June 2026 (0). A public changelog exists. The docs send API questions to the help centres, which robots.txt closes to us, and the partner guides say new integration requests are not being accepted (5 of 15). No official SDK was found (0 of 15). Guide pages carry update dates between March and June 2026 and the OpenAPI file matches the reference pages (3 of 10).",
        "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": 79,
        "maxGain": 4.2,
        "reason": "Read with the hosted lines. https://status.payfit.com is a StatusPal page with ten components, including Run Payroll and Custom integrations (data synchronisation through custom APIs), and an incident history of 115 entries (20). Between 11 July and 9 October 2026 it lists two incidents, both on the help centre component. On 16 September support functions were degraded during a Salesforce incident, and on 17 September customer callbacks failed for 15 minutes in France. Neither touched payroll or the API (27 of 30). Limits are 50 requests a second for reads and 20 for writes, per client application (15). The rate limit page gives the 429 body and `X-RateLimit` headers and suggests wait and retry. No Retry-After header and no idempotency keys were found, and the API has five POST operations (7 of 15). No SLA was found. The terms say the services may be temporarily unavailable and that PayFit endeavours to maintain outside business hours (0). The spec is version 1.0 with no beta label (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": "schema",
        "name": "Schema \u0026 documentation",
        "score": 78,
        "maxGain": 3.6,
        "reason": "A public OpenAPI 3.0.0 file, linked from the FAQ, with 31 operations and 19 named schemas (25). llms.txt indexes a Markdown twin of every guide, reference and changelog page (10). All 31 operations have a description that names the required scope and the countries served, and a few state limits, such as a created collaborator not appearing in the app until it has a contract. None say when not to use an operation (12 of 20). 74 enums, 226 required lists and patterns on month parameters. `maxResults` is typed as a string and several error fields accept any object (11 of 15). 199 examples, and every operation documents 400, 401, 403 and 404 with an example body. No 429 or 5xx response is in the file (11 of 15). The changelog has ten entries, the latest dated 23 July 2026. The path carries no version, and the October 2024 entry removed a field in the same note that announced it (9 of 15).",
        "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": 70,
        "maxGain": 2.6,
        "reason": "Closed service. The general terms of service (15 June 2026 for the UK, 8 September 2026 for France) name the contracting entity and mention the API in the third-party services clause. No separate API terms were found (15 of 30). The privacy policy gives a retention table, such as six years after the contract ends for client data, and the terms set deletion 12 months after termination. The data processing rules in the appendix give ten days to object to a new sub-processor. A separate sub-processor page, last revised 31 May 2021, lists two companies while the appendix lists more, including Amazon Web Services (20 of 30). No deprecation policy was found. The changelog marks fields and one scope as deprecated without removal dates (5 of 20). The appendix lists sub-processors by purpose and region, and the security page states storage in France across three data centres (16 of 20).",
        "blend": "editorial 56, provenance 84",
        "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": "Terms of service",
        "value": "read, states 5 of the 7 things a reader expects, and has 2 clauses that cost points",
        "points": 4.3,
        "max": 10
      },
      {
        "label": "Privacy policy",
        "value": "read, states 7 of the 8 things a reader expects",
        "points": 9.3,
        "max": 10
      },
      {
        "label": "security.txt",
        "value": "not found",
        "points": 0,
        "max": 10
      }
    ],
    "unchecked": [
      "unchecked: support.payfit.com, the help centre the docs name for API support, because its robots.txt disallows every path",
      "unchecked: the trust centre at trust.payfit.com, a script-drawn Vanta page, so the certificate, penetration testing and any further sub-processor detail are unconfirmed",
      "unchecked: the security white paper PDF linked from the security page",
      "unchecked: whether the French signup at welcome.payfit.com needs a card, and whether a trial account can create an API key",
      "unchecked: the official MCP registry. No MCP server was found on the vendor's pages read",
      "unchecked: the webhook event list, which is hosted by Svix",
      "Whether customer API keys expire or can be rotated. The guide says only that a key is shown once",
      "Which UK plans include the API. The appendix lists it under Payroll Core, while a blog post says Standard or Premium",
      "Whether a customer contract carries an SLA. None is in the public terms",
      "Whether 429 responses carry a Retry-After header. The guide names only `X-RateLimit` headers",
      "The terms pointed to are the UK entity's English text. French and Spanish clients contract under their own versions, and the Spanish one was not read",
      "The sitemap at payfit.com/sitemap.xml was fetched before the terms, to find the terms page"
    ],
    "weaknesses": [
      "No operation runs, previews or approves a payroll. The API reads payroll status, payslips and accounting exports",
      "The partner guides say PayFit is temporarily not accepting new integration requests, with no reopening date",
      "The webhook guide documents a call that sends `clientSecret` and `clientId` in the URL query string",
      "No idempotency keys, no official SDK and no MCP server were found in the reviewed documentation",
      "Fifteen of 31 operations are France-only and two are UK-only, including contract creation and both accounting exports"
    ],
    "agentNotes": [
      "Have a company admin create the key at app.payfit.com/integrations/hub/api with only the scopes the task needs. The key is shown once",
      "POST the key to `https://oauth.payfit.com/introspect` to get `company_id`, then call `https://partner-api.payfit.com/companies/{companyId}/...`",
      "Page lists with `nextPageToken` and `maxResults`, which defaults to 10 and stops at 50",
      "Check before repeating a failed POST. There is no idempotency key, and `POST /absences` creates an absence that is already validated",
      "A collaborator or contract created through the API stays incomplete until an HR admin finishes it in the PayFit app, and a new contract takes 2 to 5 minutes to appear"
    ],
    "recheck": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/builders/#disputes"
  },
  "meta": {
    "attribution": "Anchor Terminal (https://www.anchorterminal.com)",
    "docs": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/docs/",
    "generatedAt": "2026-10-10",
    "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"
  }
}