# Fix list: Veriff From Anchor Terminal's listing at https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/veriff, the October 2026 research run, assessed 8 October 2026. Grade C, 61.1 out of 100. This 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. For a coding agent working on Veriff: 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. ## 1. Agent ergonomics, 43 out of 100, up to 9.3 more on the total Why it scored 43: No field selection. The decision response is large and its content depends on the integration's configuration, with person, media and watchlist data on separate endpoints (10). No endpoint lists sessions and no pagination or filtering was found, so every read needs a stored session ID (6). Errors return status fail with a numeric code and message, with tables explaining each code (16). No idempotency key on POST /v1/sessions, so a retry creates a second session. Reads are safe to repeat (5). The minimum request is an empty verification object, but most calls need an HMAC signature whose input differs by method, and there is no server-side SDK in any language, only signing samples in JavaScript, C#, PHP and Python (6). The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-ergonomics): - 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). - 20, pagination, filtering and output-size controls. - 20, actionable, documented error responses, codes and messages an agent can recover from. - 20, idempotency or safe retries, and for MCP the `readOnlyHint` and `destructiveHint` annotations. - 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. ## 2. Reliability, 62 out of 100, up to 7.6 more on the total Why it scored 62: Graded on the Public API v1 with the hosted lines. Statuspage at status.veriff.com with API, End User Flow, Verification Decisions, Webhooks and Station components by region (20). Nine incidents between 20 July and 7 October 2026, all marked minor or none. Most were delayed decisions in the US region, the longest ran intermittently from 24 to 25 July, and on 20 July watchlist-screening webhooks weren't delivered for 100 minutes. None names the API component. We scored 15 instead of 20 for the frequency (15). Session creation is capped at 30 a minute on Self-Serve and 600 on Enterprise, and deletion at 10 in 24 hours. No figures found for other endpoints (12). The spec documents a 429 with code 1004. No Retry-After, backoff guidance or idempotency key found, though webhooks retry for a week and polling the decision endpoint is the documented fallback (5). No SLA found on the pricing, security or Trust Centre pages (0). GA (10). The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-reliability): Hosted APIs, MCP servers, models and platforms. - 20, a public status page with component history (Statuspage, Instatus, BetterStack or the vendor's own). - 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. - 15, rate limits documented with numbers. - 15, documented 429 or overload handling (Retry-After, backoff guidance), and idempotency keys or safe-retry guidance where writes are involved. - 10, an SLA published for any paid tier. - 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. - 25, a public CI and test suite, passing on the default branch. - 0 to 25, open crash or regression issues relative to activity (25 for few and handled, 0 for many, old and unanswered). - 15, semver discipline and breaking changes called out in a changelog. - 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. ## 3. Payments & pricing, 40 out of 100, up to 7.5 more on the total Why it scored 40: No x402, MPP or L402 (0). Per-verification prices are public, at $0.80, $1.39 and $1.89 with monthly minimums of $49, $99 and $209, and add-ons priced per verification (20). A 15-day trial of up to 50 sessions with no card, plus free test integrations. The trial starts after the account holder passes identity verification (20). Signup is a browser flow and keys come from the Customer Portal (0). The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-payments): 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. - 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. - 20, a free tier or trial that doesn't need a card. - 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. ## 4. Security & auth, 63 out of 100, up to 6.5 more on the total Why it scored 63: An API key plus HMAC-SHA256 signatures with a shared secret that never travels. Up to five secrets per integration, shown once, with documented rotation and deletion. No scopes, and session creation needs only the API key (22). No read-only credential. Test and live integrations are separate, DELETE is off by default and capped at 10 in 24 hours, and Enterprise plans can restrict the Public API by IP allowlist (10). Responses carry text extracted from documents and watchlist and adverse media hits, with no injection guidance found (3). An Activity Log in the Customer Portal since 4 May 2026 and a webhooks tab per session (10). ISO/IEC 27001:2022 with 27017 and 27018, SOC 2 Type II, Cyber Essentials and a bug bounty on Intigriti paying 50 to 6,000 euros. security.txt returns 404 (18). The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-security): - 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. - 0 to 20, read-only or least-privilege modes, and confirmation or approval for destructive actions. - 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. - 0 to 15, audit logs or per-call visibility for the operator. - 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. ## 5. Schema & documentation, 82 out of 100, up to 2.9 more on the total Why it scored 82: Each endpoint page is served as Markdown with an OpenAPI 3.0.0 fragment (Veriff Public API 1.0.0) and component schemas. No single downloadable spec file was found, only a Postman collection (20). llms.txt index and .md pages, and robots.txt allows AI crawlers (10). Endpoint descriptions carry a 'When to use this endpoint' section and implementation notes, such as DELETE being off by default (16). Enums, required lists and formats in the schemas, though the decision payload varies with integration configuration (12). Request examples per product, typed error schemas and published code tables from 1001 to 2104 (13). A v1 path, a written list of backwards compatible changes and dated changelog tables per page. The release notes are mostly SDK versions (11). The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-schema): APIs and MCP servers. - 25, a machine-readable contract (a public OpenAPI file or similar; for MCP, typed JSON Schema inputs on every tool). - 10, llms.txt or Markdown docs served for agents. - 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. - 0 to 15, typed inputs with enums, constraints and required fields, and no free-form JSON blobs. - 0 to 15, examples and documented error responses. - 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. ## 6. Transparency & trust, 67 out of 100, up to 2.9 more on the total Made of editorial 48, provenance 85. Why it scored 67: Closed service. The terms of service page returned no terms text to our fetch, so licence clarity rests on the pricing page and privacy notice (10). The privacy notice, last updated 16 April 2026, describes Veriff as processor for customers, and the pricing page gives retention of 3 or 6 months by plan and 2 years as an add-on. The notice also says session data may be used for machine learning under the customer contract, and no public DPA was found (20). Fields are marked deprecated in the spec with dated changelog entries, such as matchStatus on 8 July 2026, and a backwards compatible changes list is published. No notice period was found (10). A sub-processor list is linked from the privacy notice but needs JavaScript, and AWS is named for backups (8). The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-transparency): - 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. - 0 to 30, data handling and retention statements that agree with each other (privacy policy, DPA, retention periods, subprocessors). - 0 to 20, a deprecation policy or notices with dates. - 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. Provenance checks not met in full (half of this category, computed from checked facts): - Terms of service: published, but our reader couldn't read it (7 of 10) - Privacy policy: read, states 8 of the 8 things a reader expects, and has 1 clause that costs points (8 of 10) - security.txt: not found (0 of 10) ## 7. Maintenance & community, 74 out of 100, up to 2.3 more on the total Why it scored 74: Release notes dated 2 October 2026 (Flutter SDK 7.2.0), and the API guides page was updated on 3 September 2026 (30). Six dated entries since 10 July, including Android 9.3.0, iOS 10.5.0 and 10.5.1 and Cordova 4.0.0 (20). Closed service with dated release notes and per-page changelogs. Support articles sit behind a Customer Portal login and we found no public developer forum (9). Mobile and web capture SDKs are current, but there is no server-side client or MCP server (10). @veriff/js-sdk 2.0.0 dates from September 2025 and @veriff/incontext-sdk 2.5.0 from August 2025, with the js-sdk repository last pushed on 9 September 2026. CI wasn't checked (5). The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-maintenance): - 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. - 20, at least three releases or dated changelog entries in the last 90 days. - 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. - 15, presence in the official MCP registry under a verified namespace (MCP servers), or current official SDKs (APIs and models). - 10, package health, current dependencies and CI. Models are read for deprecation notice periods and model churn rather than release counts. ## What we couldn't check What 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. - unchecked: the terms of service text (the page returned no terms in its HTML) - unchecked: the sub-processor list on help.veriff.com and the Trust Centre at trust.veriff.com, both JavaScript only - unchecked: the Customer Portal knowledge base, which needs a login, including the Activity Log article - Whether an SLA or a DPA exists for Enterprise contracts. Neither was found in public pages - Whether limits apply to endpoints other than session creation and deletion, and whether a 429 carries Retry-After - Whether the KYB product from the Vespia acquisition has a public API. None is in the Public API v1 reference - The trial requires the account holder to pass identity verification. We didn't sign up to confirm the steps or that no card is asked for - npmWeekly is @veriff/incontext-sdk (28 September to 4 October 2026), a browser capture SDK, since no server-side package exists ## Weaknesses - No server-side SDK and no MCP server. Official packages cover only browser and mobile capture - No idempotency key on POST /v1/sessions, and no Retry-After or backoff guidance for the documented 429 - Nine status-page incidents between 20 July and 7 October 2026, mostly delayed decisions in the US region - No endpoint lists sessions and no pagination was found. Every read needs a stored session ID - Session deletion by API is off by default and capped at 10 sessions in 24 hours - No security.txt, and the sub-processor list sits on a help centre page that needs JavaScript ## What costs an agent a turn today The notes we give agents before they call it. Each one is a workaround an agent shouldn't need. - Take the base URL from the integration's API keys page. Send X-AUTH-CLIENT on every call and store verification.id from POST /v1/sessions - Sign POST and PATCH bodies, and the session ID on GET and DELETE, with HMAC-SHA256 in X-HMAC-SIGNATURE. POST /v1/sessions needs no signature - Stay under 30 session creations a minute on Self-Serve, 600 on Enterprise. A 429 carries code 1004 - Don't blindly retry POST /v1/sessions. Each call makes a new session, which is billed on a live integration - Poll GET /v1/sessions/{id}/decision until `verification` is not null, or accept webhooks within 5 seconds and treat duplicates as normal ## When it's done Send 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.