{
  "fixes": {
    "slug": "tablecheck",
    "name": "TableCheck API",
    "listing": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/tablecheck",
    "markdown": "# Fix list: TableCheck API\n\nFrom Anchor Terminal's listing at https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/tablecheck, the October 2026 research run, assessed 14 October 2026. Grade C, 57.1 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 TableCheck API: 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, 0 out of 100, up to 12.5 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 0: No x402, MPP or L402 (0). \"Fees may vary\", with pricing given during the application (0). No free tier. Test accounts and data are prepared on request (0). Access starts with an email to api@tablecheck.com and a case-by-case review (0). Total 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, 46 out of 100, up to 9.5 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 46: One `secret_key` per environment issued by the API team and rolled on request, with access limited to the components and venues approved for the key. No self-serve rotation or OAuth (20). Keys can be set to read-only for the MCP, write tools are marked destructive, and guest names, phones and emails are omitted from MCP results unless requested (17). The MCP page states its trust assumptions (human in the loop, the key as the boundary, personal data redacted) but gives no prompt-injection guidance for guest-written notes (6). No audit log found (0). www.tablecheck.com/.well-known/security.txt returns an HTML page, not a security.txt. The trust centre at trust.tablecheck.com renders with JavaScript only and was not read (3). Total 46.\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. Maintenance \u0026 community, 35 out of 100, up to 5.7 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 35: Read for a closed service. The MCP for Merchants page was last edited on 20 September 2026, and Messaging v1 and Custom Email Domain v1 in July 2026, which we count as the latest dated changes (30). No dated changelog with three entries in 90 days (0). Support by email (api@tablecheck.com, support@tablecheck.com), with no public issue tracker or forum (5). No server SDKs, and the MCP server is not in the official MCP registry (0). No package to judge (0). Total 35.\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## 4. Agent ergonomics, 72 out of 100, up to 4.6 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 72: The MCP server has 20 tools, filtered to the components a key holds, and returns compact projections with personal data omitted unless asked (15 + 5). REST lists filter by date, venue and guest, and MCP results are capped (15). 401 and 403 are explained, and the MCP validates dates strictly so a model can correct the call (16). MCP write tools take `idempotency_key` and carry destructiveHint. REST booking has no idempotency key but a blockage hold (16). A JavaScript Booking Form SDK exists, with no server SDKs (5). Total 72.\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## 5. Reliability, 80 out of 100, up to 4 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 80: Graded on the hosted REST API and the MCP for Merchants endpoint. Statuspage site at tablecheck.statuspage.io with a \"TableCheck Third Party API\" component (20). No incident in the 90 days to 14 October 2026. The most recent posted incident is from 22 February 2023, so the page may be little used, which we note without deducting (30). 10,000 requests per 5 minutes for each API component (15). 429 is documented with an instruction to wait for the next 5-minute period, without Retry-After. The REST booking flow uses a 5-minute table blockage before a reservation, and MCP writes take an idempotency key, but REST POST /reservations has none (7). No SLA, and the rate-limit page says the limit is not a service level commitment (0). Availability and Booking v1 are live. MCP for Merchants is marked under development (8). Total 80.\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, 77 out of 100, up to 3.7 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 77: Each component serves an OpenAPI 3.0 YAML at its /docs URL, for example Booking v1 at https://api.tablecheck.com/api/booking/v1/docs (25). No llms.txt or Markdown docs. The guides live on a Confluence site (0). Guide pages name the target audience, compare the three booking APIs and say what each is not for, and the MCP page lists what it should not be used for (17). The Booking spec has 27 enums and required fields (12). The Booking spec documents 51 4xx responses with examples, and the guides give request examples (13). Major versions in the path, a written change and deprecation policy and an announcements page, but no dated changelog (10). Total 77.\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, 66 out of 100, up to 3 more on the total\n\nMade of editorial 45, provenance 86.\n\nWhy it scored 66: Closed service under published TableCheck API Terms of Service (enacted 10 December 2018) with TableCheck, Inc. (15). The privacy policy, revised 14 September 2026, says most information is retained indefinitely unless law or a deletion request requires otherwise (10). A written API change policy promises backwards compatibility within a major version and a deprecation process, and the tablesolution.com URL retirement was announced with dates (3 June and 2 October 2026) (18). Third-party processors are not named and no data locations are given (2). Total 45.\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 6 of the 7 things a reader expects, and has 1 clause that costs points (7.1 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: the trust centre at trust.tablecheck.com, which renders with JavaScript only\n- The status page shows no incident since 22 February 2023, which may mean it is rarely updated\n- The MCP page's stdio bridge example uses https://api.staging-qa.tablecheck.com/api/mcp/v1, while the endpoint given elsewhere on the page is /api/mcp_merchant/v1\n- The MCP tool list was read from the docs page. No call was made to the live MCP server\n- Only Booking v1's OpenAPI file was read in full. The other components' specs were not fetched\n- Acts for both sides. Booking v1 is limited to first-party users (venue operators or their integration partners)\n\n## Weaknesses\n\n- Access needs an emailed application, case-by-case approval and fees quoted privately\n- MCP for Merchants is under development and its tools may change without a version bump\n- REST POST /reservations has no idempotency key\n- Keys are issued and rolled only by the API team, with no audit log found\n- Booking v1 needs per-venue approval for aggregators, and only a production environment exists by default\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- Decide which side you act for. Distribution and Web Booking serve diner-facing platforms, while Booking, CRM, POS and the MCP serve the venue\n- Ask the operator for a read-only key before using the MCP, as TableCheck recommends, and avoid cancellations through it\n- Call `hold_table` (MCP) or POST /blockages (REST) before booking, since availability is a snapshot and a blockage expires in 5 minutes\n- Send dates as YYYY-MM-DD and convert the UTC times returned to the venue's time zone from `list_shops`\n- Stay under 10,000 requests per 5 minutes per component and wait for the next window after a 429\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": 57.1,
    "assessed": "2026-10-14",
    "run": "October 2026 research run",
    "categories": [
      {
        "key": "payments",
        "name": "Payments \u0026 pricing",
        "score": 0,
        "maxGain": 12.5,
        "reason": "No x402, MPP or L402 (0). \"Fees may vary\", with pricing given during the application (0). No free tier. Test accounts and data are prepared on request (0). Access starts with an email to api@tablecheck.com and a case-by-case review (0). Total 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": 46,
        "maxGain": 9.5,
        "reason": "One `secret_key` per environment issued by the API team and rolled on request, with access limited to the components and venues approved for the key. No self-serve rotation or OAuth (20). Keys can be set to read-only for the MCP, write tools are marked destructive, and guest names, phones and emails are omitted from MCP results unless requested (17). The MCP page states its trust assumptions (human in the loop, the key as the boundary, personal data redacted) but gives no prompt-injection guidance for guest-written notes (6). No audit log found (0). www.tablecheck.com/.well-known/security.txt returns an HTML page, not a security.txt. The trust centre at trust.tablecheck.com renders with JavaScript only and was not read (3). Total 46.",
        "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": 35,
        "maxGain": 5.7,
        "reason": "Read for a closed service. The MCP for Merchants page was last edited on 20 September 2026, and Messaging v1 and Custom Email Domain v1 in July 2026, which we count as the latest dated changes (30). No dated changelog with three entries in 90 days (0). Support by email (api@tablecheck.com, support@tablecheck.com), with no public issue tracker or forum (5). No server SDKs, and the MCP server is not in the official MCP registry (0). No package to judge (0). Total 35.",
        "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": "ergonomics",
        "name": "Agent ergonomics",
        "score": 72,
        "maxGain": 4.6,
        "reason": "The MCP server has 20 tools, filtered to the components a key holds, and returns compact projections with personal data omitted unless asked (15 + 5). REST lists filter by date, venue and guest, and MCP results are capped (15). 401 and 403 are explained, and the MCP validates dates strictly so a model can correct the call (16). MCP write tools take `idempotency_key` and carry destructiveHint. REST booking has no idempotency key but a blockage hold (16). A JavaScript Booking Form SDK exists, with no server SDKs (5). Total 72.",
        "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": 80,
        "maxGain": 4,
        "reason": "Graded on the hosted REST API and the MCP for Merchants endpoint. Statuspage site at tablecheck.statuspage.io with a \"TableCheck Third Party API\" component (20). No incident in the 90 days to 14 October 2026. The most recent posted incident is from 22 February 2023, so the page may be little used, which we note without deducting (30). 10,000 requests per 5 minutes for each API component (15). 429 is documented with an instruction to wait for the next 5-minute period, without Retry-After. The REST booking flow uses a 5-minute table blockage before a reservation, and MCP writes take an idempotency key, but REST POST /reservations has none (7). No SLA, and the rate-limit page says the limit is not a service level commitment (0). Availability and Booking v1 are live. MCP for Merchants is marked under development (8). Total 80.",
        "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": 77,
        "maxGain": 3.7,
        "reason": "Each component serves an OpenAPI 3.0 YAML at its /docs URL, for example Booking v1 at https://api.tablecheck.com/api/booking/v1/docs (25). No llms.txt or Markdown docs. The guides live on a Confluence site (0). Guide pages name the target audience, compare the three booking APIs and say what each is not for, and the MCP page lists what it should not be used for (17). The Booking spec has 27 enums and required fields (12). The Booking spec documents 51 4xx responses with examples, and the guides give request examples (13). Major versions in the path, a written change and deprecation policy and an announcements page, but no dated changelog (10). Total 77.",
        "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": 66,
        "maxGain": 3,
        "reason": "Closed service under published TableCheck API Terms of Service (enacted 10 December 2018) with TableCheck, Inc. (15). The privacy policy, revised 14 September 2026, says most information is retained indefinitely unless law or a deletion request requires otherwise (10). A written API change policy promises backwards compatibility within a major version and a deprecation process, and the tablesolution.com URL retirement was announced with dates (3 June and 2 October 2026) (18). Third-party processors are not named and no data locations are given (2). Total 45.",
        "blend": "editorial 45, provenance 86",
        "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 6 of the 7 things a reader expects, and has 1 clause that costs points",
        "points": 7.1,
        "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: the trust centre at trust.tablecheck.com, which renders with JavaScript only",
      "The status page shows no incident since 22 February 2023, which may mean it is rarely updated",
      "The MCP page's stdio bridge example uses https://api.staging-qa.tablecheck.com/api/mcp/v1, while the endpoint given elsewhere on the page is /api/mcp_merchant/v1",
      "The MCP tool list was read from the docs page. No call was made to the live MCP server",
      "Only Booking v1's OpenAPI file was read in full. The other components' specs were not fetched",
      "Acts for both sides. Booking v1 is limited to first-party users (venue operators or their integration partners)"
    ],
    "weaknesses": [
      "Access needs an emailed application, case-by-case approval and fees quoted privately",
      "MCP for Merchants is under development and its tools may change without a version bump",
      "REST POST /reservations has no idempotency key",
      "Keys are issued and rolled only by the API team, with no audit log found",
      "Booking v1 needs per-venue approval for aggregators, and only a production environment exists by default"
    ],
    "agentNotes": [
      "Decide which side you act for. Distribution and Web Booking serve diner-facing platforms, while Booking, CRM, POS and the MCP serve the venue",
      "Ask the operator for a read-only key before using the MCP, as TableCheck recommends, and avoid cancellations through it",
      "Call `hold_table` (MCP) or POST /blockages (REST) before booking, since availability is a snapshot and a blockage expires in 5 minutes",
      "Send dates as YYYY-MM-DD and convert the UTC times returned to the venue's time zone from `list_shops`",
      "Stay under 10,000 requests per 5 minutes per component and wait for the next window after a 429"
    ],
    "recheck": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/builders/#disputes"
  },
  "meta": {
    "attribution": "Anchor Terminal (https://www.anchorterminal.com)",
    "docs": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/docs/",
    "generatedAt": "2026-10-14",
    "license": "CC-BY-4.0",
    "method": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/",
    "methodology": "0.4",
    "openapi": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/openapi.json",
    "preview": false,
    "run": "2026-10-01",
    "runLabel": "October 2026 research run"
  }
}