{
  "fixes": {
    "slug": "sec-edgar",
    "name": "SEC EDGAR APIs",
    "listing": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/sec-edgar",
    "markdown": "# Fix list: SEC EDGAR APIs\n\nFrom Anchor Terminal's listing at https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/sec-edgar, the October 2026 research run, assessed 9 October 2026. Grade E, 40.8 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 SEC EDGAR 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. Schema \u0026 documentation, 23 out of 100, up to 12.5 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 23: No OpenAPI file or other machine-readable contract is linked from the docs (0). www.sec.gov/llms.txt returns 404 (0). One page describes the four routes in prose, says what each returns and points large pulls to the bulk files, with nothing on response fields (10 of 20). Path patterns state the 10-digit CIK, the taxonomy, the unit form and the three period formats, with no list of allowed values and no response schema (7 of 15). Example URLs are given, with no example response and no error reference (4 of 15). Paths carry no version and no API changelog was found. The page shows a last update of 8 April 2025 (2 of 15). Total 23.\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## 2. Reliability, 38 out of 100, up to 12.4 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 38: Graded as a hosted API. No status page was found for data.sec.gov in the API docs, the developer pages or the FAQ (0), so there is no incident history to read (5). The limit is published, 10 requests a second for each user (15). The policy says an IP address over the limit may be limited until its rate has stayed below the threshold for 10 minutes, with no status code, Retry-After header or backoff guidance documented. Every request is a read (8 of 15). No SLA, and the SEC says it gives no technical support for scripted access (0). The APIs carry no beta label (10). 0 + 5 + 15 + 8 + 0 + 10 = 38.\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## 3. Agent ergonomics, 41 out of 100, up to 9.6 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 41: No limit, paging or field selection. `companyconcept` and `frames` narrow a request to one concept, and submissions use compact column arrays, but Apple's submissions file was 164 KB on the day (8 of 25). No query parameters. Older filings are split into extra files listed with their date ranges, and nothing filters by form or date (6 of 20). Errors are not documented, and a missing path answered 404 with an XML `NoSuchKey` body (5 of 20). Every route is a GET on a JSON document and safe to retry (15 of 20). A call needs one CIK and no key, but the CIK comes from a separate file, the User-Agent must be set, and no official SDK was found (7 of 15). Total 41.\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. Security \u0026 auth, 52 out of 100, up to 8.4 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 52: No credential, so there is no secret to leak. The declared User-Agent carries a contact address, not a key (20 of 30). The APIs are read-only (15 of 20). Responses are mostly numbers and filing metadata, with names and descriptions as filers wrote them and no guidance on treating them as untrusted (7 of 15). No account, so no request log or usage view (0 of 15). A Vulnerability Disclosure Policy updated on 21 September 2026 authorises good-faith research, takes reports through a Bugcrowd form and asks for 90 days before disclosure. security.txt returns 404, there is no paid bounty, and no certification was found (10 of 20). Total 52.\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## 5. Maintenance \u0026 community, 14 out of 100, up to 7.5 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 14: No dated change to the data APIs was found. The docs page shows a last update of 8 April 2025, 549 days before the check (0 of 30). EDGAR News and Announcements carries three posts in the last 90 days (14 August, 14 September and 7 October 2026), all about the filing system and its taxonomies and none about these APIs, so half credit (10 of 20). The SEC publishes webmaster@sec.gov and opendata@sec.gov for feedback and says it gives no technical support for scripted access. No forum or issue tracker was found (4 of 15). No official SDK (0 of 15). No package to judge (0 of 10). Total 14.\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-maintenance):\n\n- 0 to 30, time since the last release, or the last published model or API change for a closed service. 30 within 30 days, 20 within 90, 10 within 180, 0 older.\n- 20, at least three releases or dated changelog entries in the last 90 days.\n- 0 to 25, responsiveness. Issues and pull requests answered on GitHub (the open issues and how recent the replies are). For closed services, a public changelog and a support or community channel that answers, 0 to 15.\n- 15, presence in the official MCP registry under a verified namespace (MCP servers), or current official SDKs (APIs and models).\n- 10, package health, current dependencies and CI.\n\nModels are read for deprecation notice periods and model churn rather than release counts.\n\n## 6. Payments \u0026 pricing, 60 out of 100, up to 5 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 60: No x402, MPP or L402 (0). Free, stated publicly, with nothing to buy (20). No account or card (20). An agent can call with no sign-up, sending only a declared User-Agent (20). Total 60.\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## 7. Transparency \u0026 trust, 57 out of 100, up to 3.8 more on the total\n\nMade of editorial 43, provenance 70.\n\nWhy it scored 57: Closed government service. The policy says information on sec.gov is public and may be copied or redistributed without permission, and sets the automated access rules (15 of 30). The privacy policy lists what is logged on each visit, says partial IP addresses are published in response to FOIA requests, and links Privacy Impact Assessments and system of records notices. No retention period for access logs is stated (18 of 30). No deprecation policy for the APIs. The policy says its limits may change (2 of 20). Google Analytics, Foresee, Akamai and GovDelivery are named. The Amazon hosting seen in response headers is not, and no data locations are given (8 of 20). Total 43.\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 2 of the 7 things a reader expects, and has 1 clause that costs points (3.7 of 10)\n- Privacy policy: read, states 3 of the 8 things a reader expects (6.3 of 10)\n- Status page: not found (0 of 10)\n- security.txt: not found (0 of 10)\n\n## What we couldn't check\n\nWhat we couldn't read counted as absent. Publishing it on a page a plain HTTP fetch can read (not only in a browser) lets the next check count it.\n\n- unchecked: the `companyfacts` and `frames` routes. To keep to a few requests, only `submissions` and `companyconcept` were called, so the size of a company facts response was not seen\n- unchecked: behaviour over the rate limit. No attempt was made to reach it, so the status code and any Retry-After header are unknown\n- unchecked: a request with no declared User-Agent. Every request carried one, so the response to an undeclared tool was not seen\n- unchecked: the Privacy Impact Assessments and system of records notices, which may state how long access logs are kept\n- unchecked: the token-protected EDGAR filer APIs on api.edgarfiling.sec.gov. They are a separate surface for filers and were not read or graded\n- No status page for data.sec.gov was found by reading the docs, developer pages and FAQ. Web search was not available to look further\n- `provenance.terms` and `provenance.privacy` are the same page, the SEC Web Site Privacy and Security Policy, because the API docs name it as the document automated access must comply with and no separate API terms were found\n- The docs say data.sec.gov does not support CORS. The submissions response on the day carried `access-control-allow-origin: *` and the company concept response did not\n- `lastRelease` is null because no dated change to the data APIs was found. The date the APIs launched was not found either\n- The Accessing EDGAR Data page says the SEC does not allow automated tools to crawl the site, while the FAQ says scripted access with a declared User-Agent is allowed. Read together they permit declared, rate-limited access. Recorded as a fact, with no deduction\n\n## Weaknesses\n\n- No OpenAPI file, llms.txt, response schema, error reference or official SDK was found. The documentation is one page of prose with example URLs\n- No query parameters. A filing history cannot be filtered by form or date, and the submissions response for Apple was 164 KB uncompressed on 9 October 2026\n- No status page or SLA was found for data.sec.gov, and the SEC says it gives no technical support for scripted access\n- No API changelog or deprecation policy was found. The docs page was last updated on 8 April 2025 and the policy says limits may change\n- Lookups need a 10-digit CIK. Mapping a ticker or name to a CIK uses separate files on www.sec.gov that the SEC does not guarantee\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- Send a User-Agent naming the operator's organisation and a contact email address on every request. The SEC limits or blocks undeclared automated tools\n- Stay under 10 requests a second in total across all machines. Over the limit, the IP address may be limited until the rate has stayed below the threshold for 10 minutes\n- Pad the CIK to 10 digits with leading zeros in `submissions/CIK##########.json` and the XBRL paths. Find a CIK in `https://www.sec.gov/files/company_tickers.json`\n- Prefer `api/xbrl/companyconcept/` for one figure. `companyfacts` returns every concept a company has reported, and `submissions` returns at least 1,000 filings in column arrays\n- Read older filings from the extra files named in `filings.files`, and check a frame fact's own start and end dates, since frames align company periods to calendar quarters\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": 40.8,
    "assessed": "2026-10-09",
    "run": "October 2026 research run",
    "categories": [
      {
        "key": "schema",
        "name": "Schema \u0026 documentation",
        "score": 23,
        "maxGain": 12.5,
        "reason": "No OpenAPI file or other machine-readable contract is linked from the docs (0). www.sec.gov/llms.txt returns 404 (0). One page describes the four routes in prose, says what each returns and points large pulls to the bulk files, with nothing on response fields (10 of 20). Path patterns state the 10-digit CIK, the taxonomy, the unit form and the three period formats, with no list of allowed values and no response schema (7 of 15). Example URLs are given, with no example response and no error reference (4 of 15). Paths carry no version and no API changelog was found. The page shows a last update of 8 April 2025 (2 of 15). Total 23.",
        "checklist": [
          "APIs and MCP servers.",
          "- 25, a machine-readable contract (a public OpenAPI file or similar; for MCP, typed JSON Schema inputs on every tool).\n- 10, llms.txt or Markdown docs served for agents.\n- 0 to 20, descriptions that say what a tool is for, when to use it and when not to, read from the tool definitions in the source or the API reference.\n- 0 to 15, typed inputs with enums, constraints and required fields, and no free-form JSON blobs.\n- 0 to 15, examples and documented error responses.\n- 15, versioning and a public changelog.",
          "Models are read from the API reference, the OpenAPI file, llms.txt, the structured-output and tool-use docs and the model cards. Frameworks from docs a model can follow, typed interfaces, examples and the API reference."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-schema"
      },
      {
        "key": "reliability",
        "name": "Reliability",
        "score": 38,
        "maxGain": 12.4,
        "reason": "Graded as a hosted API. No status page was found for data.sec.gov in the API docs, the developer pages or the FAQ (0), so there is no incident history to read (5). The limit is published, 10 requests a second for each user (15). The policy says an IP address over the limit may be limited until its rate has stayed below the threshold for 10 minutes, with no status code, Retry-After header or backoff guidance documented. Every request is a read (8 of 15). No SLA, and the SEC says it gives no technical support for scripted access (0). The APIs carry no beta label (10). 0 + 5 + 15 + 8 + 0 + 10 = 38.",
        "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": "ergonomics",
        "name": "Agent ergonomics",
        "score": 41,
        "maxGain": 9.6,
        "reason": "No limit, paging or field selection. `companyconcept` and `frames` narrow a request to one concept, and submissions use compact column arrays, but Apple's submissions file was 164 KB on the day (8 of 25). No query parameters. Older filings are split into extra files listed with their date ranges, and nothing filters by form or date (6 of 20). Errors are not documented, and a missing path answered 404 with an XML `NoSuchKey` body (5 of 20). Every route is a GET on a JSON document and safe to retry (15 of 20). A call needs one CIK and no key, but the CIK comes from a separate file, the User-Agent must be set, and no official SDK was found (7 of 15). Total 41.",
        "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": "security",
        "name": "Security \u0026 auth",
        "score": 52,
        "maxGain": 8.4,
        "reason": "No credential, so there is no secret to leak. The declared User-Agent carries a contact address, not a key (20 of 30). The APIs are read-only (15 of 20). Responses are mostly numbers and filing metadata, with names and descriptions as filers wrote them and no guidance on treating them as untrusted (7 of 15). No account, so no request log or usage view (0 of 15). A Vulnerability Disclosure Policy updated on 21 September 2026 authorises good-faith research, takes reports through a Bugcrowd form and asks for 90 days before disclosure. security.txt returns 404, there is no paid bounty, and no certification was found (10 of 20). Total 52.",
        "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": 14,
        "maxGain": 7.5,
        "reason": "No dated change to the data APIs was found. The docs page shows a last update of 8 April 2025, 549 days before the check (0 of 30). EDGAR News and Announcements carries three posts in the last 90 days (14 August, 14 September and 7 October 2026), all about the filing system and its taxonomies and none about these APIs, so half credit (10 of 20). The SEC publishes webmaster@sec.gov and opendata@sec.gov for feedback and says it gives no technical support for scripted access. No forum or issue tracker was found (4 of 15). No official SDK (0 of 15). No package to judge (0 of 10). Total 14.",
        "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": "payments",
        "name": "Payments \u0026 pricing",
        "score": 60,
        "maxGain": 5,
        "reason": "No x402, MPP or L402 (0). Free, stated publicly, with nothing to buy (20). No account or card (20). An agent can call with no sign-up, sending only a declared User-Agent (20). Total 60.",
        "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": "transparency",
        "name": "Transparency \u0026 trust",
        "score": 57,
        "maxGain": 3.8,
        "reason": "Closed government service. The policy says information on sec.gov is public and may be copied or redistributed without permission, and sets the automated access rules (15 of 30). The privacy policy lists what is logged on each visit, says partial IP addresses are published in response to FOIA requests, and links Privacy Impact Assessments and system of records notices. No retention period for access logs is stated (18 of 30). No deprecation policy for the APIs. The policy says its limits may change (2 of 20). Google Analytics, Foresee, Akamai and GovDelivery are named. The Amazon hosting seen in response headers is not, and no data locations are given (8 of 20). Total 43.",
        "blend": "editorial 43, provenance 70",
        "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 2 of the 7 things a reader expects, and has 1 clause that costs points",
        "points": 3.7,
        "max": 10
      },
      {
        "label": "Privacy policy",
        "value": "read, states 3 of the 8 things a reader expects",
        "points": 6.3,
        "max": 10
      },
      {
        "label": "Status page",
        "value": "not found",
        "points": 0,
        "max": 10
      },
      {
        "label": "security.txt",
        "value": "not found",
        "points": 0,
        "max": 10
      }
    ],
    "unchecked": [
      "unchecked: the `companyfacts` and `frames` routes. To keep to a few requests, only `submissions` and `companyconcept` were called, so the size of a company facts response was not seen",
      "unchecked: behaviour over the rate limit. No attempt was made to reach it, so the status code and any Retry-After header are unknown",
      "unchecked: a request with no declared User-Agent. Every request carried one, so the response to an undeclared tool was not seen",
      "unchecked: the Privacy Impact Assessments and system of records notices, which may state how long access logs are kept",
      "unchecked: the token-protected EDGAR filer APIs on api.edgarfiling.sec.gov. They are a separate surface for filers and were not read or graded",
      "No status page for data.sec.gov was found by reading the docs, developer pages and FAQ. Web search was not available to look further",
      "`provenance.terms` and `provenance.privacy` are the same page, the SEC Web Site Privacy and Security Policy, because the API docs name it as the document automated access must comply with and no separate API terms were found",
      "The docs say data.sec.gov does not support CORS. The submissions response on the day carried `access-control-allow-origin: *` and the company concept response did not",
      "`lastRelease` is null because no dated change to the data APIs was found. The date the APIs launched was not found either",
      "The Accessing EDGAR Data page says the SEC does not allow automated tools to crawl the site, while the FAQ says scripted access with a declared User-Agent is allowed. Read together they permit declared, rate-limited access. Recorded as a fact, with no deduction"
    ],
    "weaknesses": [
      "No OpenAPI file, llms.txt, response schema, error reference or official SDK was found. The documentation is one page of prose with example URLs",
      "No query parameters. A filing history cannot be filtered by form or date, and the submissions response for Apple was 164 KB uncompressed on 9 October 2026",
      "No status page or SLA was found for data.sec.gov, and the SEC says it gives no technical support for scripted access",
      "No API changelog or deprecation policy was found. The docs page was last updated on 8 April 2025 and the policy says limits may change",
      "Lookups need a 10-digit CIK. Mapping a ticker or name to a CIK uses separate files on www.sec.gov that the SEC does not guarantee"
    ],
    "agentNotes": [
      "Send a User-Agent naming the operator's organisation and a contact email address on every request. The SEC limits or blocks undeclared automated tools",
      "Stay under 10 requests a second in total across all machines. Over the limit, the IP address may be limited until the rate has stayed below the threshold for 10 minutes",
      "Pad the CIK to 10 digits with leading zeros in `submissions/CIK##########.json` and the XBRL paths. Find a CIK in `https://www.sec.gov/files/company_tickers.json`",
      "Prefer `api/xbrl/companyconcept/` for one figure. `companyfacts` returns every concept a company has reported, and `submissions` returns at least 1,000 filings in column arrays",
      "Read older filings from the extra files named in `filings.files`, and check a frame fact's own start and end dates, since frames align company periods to calendar quarters"
    ],
    "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"
  }
}