{
  "fixes": {
    "slug": "scrapingdog",
    "name": "Scrapingdog",
    "listing": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/scrapingdog",
    "markdown": "# Fix list: Scrapingdog\n\nFrom Anchor Terminal's listing at https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/scrapingdog, the October 2026 research run, assessed 1 October 2026. Grade E, 39.3 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 Scrapingdog: 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, 5 out of 100, up to 16.6 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 5: One account key with no scopes, and we found no rotation or revocation docs (10). The key goes only in the api_key query string, with no header option, so less 10 (0 of 30). No read-only mode or least-privilege key. The API only reads third-party pages, so there are no destructive account actions (5 of 20). No prompt-injection guidance in the docs or the MCP README (0 of 15). No request log or per-call audit found (0 of 15). No security.txt per the 30 September check, and no disclosure policy, bug bounty or certification found (0 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, 43 out of 100, up to 9.3 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 43: No OpenAPI spec found. The MCP builds typed zod inputs for 35 tools from a declarative registry, and ai_extract_rules is a JSON string (12 of 25). llms.txt per the 30 September check (10). MCP descriptions say what each endpoint does but not when to avoid it, and the web_scrape tool tells the model the API default for dynamic is false while the docs say rendering is on by default (10 of 20). Booleans, numbers and strings with few enums, plus the JSON-string field (9 of 15). Code examples on each docs page and 8 documented status codes (12 of 15). No changelog and no versioned API paths found (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, 44 out of 100, up to 9.1 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 44: 35 MCP tools with no toolsets or subsets (5 of 25). markdown=true, ai_query and parsed JSON endpoints for Google, Amazon and LinkedIn keep responses smaller. No documented pagination or size limits on the raw scrape (12 of 20). 8 HTTP status codes with meanings, and the MCP passes the status and body back (12 of 20). Failed requests aren't billed, but no tool annotations or idempotency guidance (5 of 20). Only url is required, but rendering defaults on at 5 credits and the MCP describes it as off. Node and Python SDKs (10 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. Reliability, 62 out of 100, up to 7.6 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 62: UptimeRobot status page linked from the footer per the 30 September check. It renders client-side and its data API is closed to our reader, so we couldn't see components today (15 of 20). No readable incident history (5). Concurrency per plan is published, 1 on Free up to 2,200 on the top plan (15). Over the limit returns 429, requests time out after 60 seconds, and the docs say to retry. Failures aren't billed. No Retry-After found (10 of 15). A public SLA page says Scrapingdog aims for 99 per cent monthly uptime and compensates downtime in credits, with no measurement method or date (7 of 10). Generally available (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## 5. Payments \u0026 pricing, 40 out of 100, up to 7.5 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 40: No x402, MPP or L402 (0). Credit costs per API and plan prices are public, from 1 credit for a rotating-proxy request to 50 for a LinkedIn profile (20). Free plan of 100 credits and 1 concurrent request, no card. The docs say 200 requests a month (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## 6. Maintenance \u0026 community, 45 out of 100, up to 4.8 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 45: The SDKs and MCP server were first published on 31 July and 1 August 2026, 61 days ago. No API changelog or later release found (20). Three packages and two MCP versions shipped on launch day and nothing since, so we gave half (10 of 20). We couldn't read GitHub issues. The MCP repo has 6 commits, all on 1 August, and support is by chat and email (5 of 25). The MCP is in the official registry under the personal namespace io.github.Darshan972, though the vendor's SDK page links it as its own. SDKs are current (8 of 15). No CI, tests or tags in the MCP repo (2 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## 7. Transparency \u0026 trust, 57 out of 100, up to 3.8 more on the total\n\nMade of editorial 37, provenance 76.\n\nWhy it scored 57: Closed service with terms revised 13 January 2026, naming OpenData Labs Private Limited under the laws of Rajasthan, India, with no postal address. The MCP is MIT (15 of 30). The privacy policy, revised 17 July 2025, says API calls are stateless and that Scrapingdog doesn't store, log or retain personal data fetched through the API. A DPA is published. No retention periods for account data (22 of 30). No deprecation policy or dated notices found (0). No processors or data locations named (0 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- Domain age: scrapingdog.com, registered 2020-04-04 (6 years) (11 of 15)\n- Changelog: not found (0 of 10)\n- security.txt: not found (0 of 10)\n\n## Deductions\n\nEach comes off the total. A fixed and documented problem counts for less at the next check.\n\n- 2026-08-01: the vendor-linked MCP server's web_scrape tool describes dynamic as `(API default: false)`, while https://www.scrapingdog.com/documentation/javascript-rendering/ says rendering is on by default at 5 credits. The MCP omits unset parameters, so a model that trusts the description pays 5 times the plain rate (https://github.com/Darshan972/Scrapingdog-mcp, src/endpoints.ts) (-2).\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: status history. The UptimeRobot page renders client-side and its data API is closed to our reader\n- Which is right on the rendering default, the docs (on) or the MCP description (off)\n- Whether the MCP repository will move to a vendor account, and who answers its issues\n- Whether API keys can be rotated or revoked\n\n## Weaknesses\n\n- API key only travels in the URL query string\n- Rendering defaults on at 5 credits, and the MCP's web_scrape description says the default is off\n- MCP server published 2026-08-01 from a personal account, with 35 tools, no CI, no tags and no release since\n- No changelog, security.txt or prompt-injection guidance\n- The free allowance differs between pricing (100 credits) and docs (200 a month)\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- Add dynamic=false unless the page needs JavaScript. It cuts the cost from 5 credits to 1, whatever the MCP description says\n- Keep request URLs out of logs, since they carry api_key\n- Set client timeouts above 60 seconds and retry on 429 or timeout. Failures aren't billed\n- Prefer the parsed endpoints (Google, Amazon) over scraping the raw page when one exists\n\n## What the review panel asked for\n\n- correct the dynamic default in the MCP description\n- fix rendering default description\n- document response size limits\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": 39.3,
    "assessed": "2026-10-01",
    "run": "October 2026 research run",
    "categories": [
      {
        "key": "security",
        "name": "Security \u0026 auth",
        "score": 5,
        "maxGain": 16.6,
        "reason": "One account key with no scopes, and we found no rotation or revocation docs (10). The key goes only in the api_key query string, with no header option, so less 10 (0 of 30). No read-only mode or least-privilege key. The API only reads third-party pages, so there are no destructive account actions (5 of 20). No prompt-injection guidance in the docs or the MCP README (0 of 15). No request log or per-call audit found (0 of 15). No security.txt per the 30 September check, and no disclosure policy, bug bounty or certification found (0 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": 43,
        "maxGain": 9.3,
        "reason": "No OpenAPI spec found. The MCP builds typed zod inputs for 35 tools from a declarative registry, and ai_extract_rules is a JSON string (12 of 25). llms.txt per the 30 September check (10). MCP descriptions say what each endpoint does but not when to avoid it, and the web_scrape tool tells the model the API default for dynamic is false while the docs say rendering is on by default (10 of 20). Booleans, numbers and strings with few enums, plus the JSON-string field (9 of 15). Code examples on each docs page and 8 documented status codes (12 of 15). No changelog and no versioned API paths found (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": 44,
        "maxGain": 9.1,
        "reason": "35 MCP tools with no toolsets or subsets (5 of 25). markdown=true, ai_query and parsed JSON endpoints for Google, Amazon and LinkedIn keep responses smaller. No documented pagination or size limits on the raw scrape (12 of 20). 8 HTTP status codes with meanings, and the MCP passes the status and body back (12 of 20). Failed requests aren't billed, but no tool annotations or idempotency guidance (5 of 20). Only url is required, but rendering defaults on at 5 credits and the MCP describes it as off. Node and Python SDKs (10 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": "reliability",
        "name": "Reliability",
        "score": 62,
        "maxGain": 7.6,
        "reason": "UptimeRobot status page linked from the footer per the 30 September check. It renders client-side and its data API is closed to our reader, so we couldn't see components today (15 of 20). No readable incident history (5). Concurrency per plan is published, 1 on Free up to 2,200 on the top plan (15). Over the limit returns 429, requests time out after 60 seconds, and the docs say to retry. Failures aren't billed. No Retry-After found (10 of 15). A public SLA page says Scrapingdog aims for 99 per cent monthly uptime and compensates downtime in credits, with no measurement method or date (7 of 10). Generally available (10).",
        "checklist": [
          "Hosted APIs, MCP servers, models and platforms.",
          "- 20, a public status page with component history (Statuspage, Instatus, BetterStack or the vendor's own).\n- 0 to 30, the incident record for the last 90 days on that page. 30 for a clean record or trivial incidents only, 20 for minor incidents only, 10 for one major outage (an hour or more of a core API down, or errors across the board), 0 for several. 5 when there's no history we could read, and the note says so.\n- 15, rate limits documented with numbers.\n- 15, documented 429 or overload handling (Retry-After, backoff guidance), and idempotency keys or safe-retry guidance where writes are involved.\n- 10, an SLA published for any paid tier.\n- 10, the surface agents use is generally available, not beta or preview.",
          "Local packages, SDKs, frameworks and stdio MCP servers.",
          "- 20, installs from an official package with supported runtimes stated.\n- 25, a public CI and test suite, passing on the default branch.\n- 0 to 25, open crash or regression issues relative to activity (25 for few and handled, 0 for many, old and unanswered).\n- 15, semver discipline and breaking changes called out in a changelog.\n- 15, version 1.0 or later, or declared stable.",
          "Protocols are read from their reference implementations, the public facilitators or servers, spec stability and test vectors."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-reliability"
      },
      {
        "key": "payments",
        "name": "Payments \u0026 pricing",
        "score": 40,
        "maxGain": 7.5,
        "reason": "No x402, MPP or L402 (0). Credit costs per API and plan prices are public, from 1 credit for a rotating-proxy request to 50 for a LinkedIn profile (20). Free plan of 100 credits and 1 concurrent request, no card. The docs say 200 requests a month (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": 45,
        "maxGain": 4.8,
        "reason": "The SDKs and MCP server were first published on 31 July and 1 August 2026, 61 days ago. No API changelog or later release found (20). Three packages and two MCP versions shipped on launch day and nothing since, so we gave half (10 of 20). We couldn't read GitHub issues. The MCP repo has 6 commits, all on 1 August, and support is by chat and email (5 of 25). The MCP is in the official registry under the personal namespace io.github.Darshan972, though the vendor's SDK page links it as its own. SDKs are current (8 of 15). No CI, tests or tags in the MCP repo (2 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": "transparency",
        "name": "Transparency \u0026 trust",
        "score": 57,
        "maxGain": 3.8,
        "reason": "Closed service with terms revised 13 January 2026, naming OpenData Labs Private Limited under the laws of Rajasthan, India, with no postal address. The MCP is MIT (15 of 30). The privacy policy, revised 17 July 2025, says API calls are stateless and that Scrapingdog doesn't store, log or retain personal data fetched through the API. A DPA is published. No retention periods for account data (22 of 30). No deprecation policy or dated notices found (0). No processors or data locations named (0 of 20).",
        "blend": "editorial 37, 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": "Domain age",
        "value": "scrapingdog.com, registered 2020-04-04 (6 years)",
        "points": 11,
        "max": 15
      },
      {
        "label": "Changelog",
        "value": "not found",
        "points": 0,
        "max": 10
      },
      {
        "label": "security.txt",
        "value": "not found",
        "points": 0,
        "max": 10
      }
    ],
    "deductions": [
      "2026-08-01: the vendor-linked MCP server's web_scrape tool describes dynamic as `(API default: false)`, while https://www.scrapingdog.com/documentation/javascript-rendering/ says rendering is on by default at 5 credits. The MCP omits unset parameters, so a model that trusts the description pays 5 times the plain rate (https://github.com/Darshan972/Scrapingdog-mcp, src/endpoints.ts) (-2)."
    ],
    "unchecked": [
      "unchecked: status history. The UptimeRobot page renders client-side and its data API is closed to our reader",
      "Which is right on the rendering default, the docs (on) or the MCP description (off)",
      "Whether the MCP repository will move to a vendor account, and who answers its issues",
      "Whether API keys can be rotated or revoked"
    ],
    "weaknesses": [
      "API key only travels in the URL query string",
      "Rendering defaults on at 5 credits, and the MCP's web_scrape description says the default is off",
      "MCP server published 2026-08-01 from a personal account, with 35 tools, no CI, no tags and no release since",
      "No changelog, security.txt or prompt-injection guidance",
      "The free allowance differs between pricing (100 credits) and docs (200 a month)"
    ],
    "agentNotes": [
      "Add dynamic=false unless the page needs JavaScript. It cuts the cost from 5 credits to 1, whatever the MCP description says",
      "Keep request URLs out of logs, since they carry api_key",
      "Set client timeouts above 60 seconds and retry on 429 or timeout. Failures aren't billed",
      "Prefer the parsed endpoints (Google, Amazon) over scraping the raw page when one exists"
    ],
    "requests": [
      {
        "text": "correct the dynamic default in the MCP description",
        "reviews": 1
      },
      {
        "text": "fix rendering default description",
        "reviews": 1
      },
      {
        "text": "document response size limits",
        "reviews": 1
      }
    ],
    "recheck": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/builders/#disputes"
  },
  "meta": {
    "attribution": "Anchor Terminal (https://www.anchorterminal.com)",
    "docs": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/docs/",
    "generatedAt": "2026-10-05",
    "license": "CC-BY-4.0",
    "method": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/",
    "methodology": "0.3",
    "openapi": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/openapi.json",
    "preview": false,
    "run": "2026-10-01",
    "runLabel": "October 2026 research run"
  }
}