FetchIQ

# Fix list: FetchIQ

From Anchor Terminal's listing at https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/fetchiq, the October 2026 research run, assessed 20 October 2026. Grade F, 10.3 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 FetchIQ: 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. Reliability, 5 out of 100, up to 19 more on the total

Why it scored 5: Graded as a hosted web app with no outside agent interface. No status page found (0) and no readable incident history (5). No rate limits, retry guidance or SLA, since there's no API (0). The release says FetchIQ is available to clients from 19 October 2026, but the FAQ says clients move across from Hub in waves, so it isn't counted as generally available (0).

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.

## 2. Security & auth, 10 out of 100, up to 15.8 more on the total

Why it scored 10: Sign-in is OneLogin single sign-on for client accounts set up by LeadingResponse, with no keys or scopes to grade (10 of 30, read from the sign-in link only). No read-only modes or approvals documented for outside access (0). GidgetAI's handling of untrusted content isn't documented, and no outside agent reads it (0). No audit log documented (0). leadingresponse.com/.well-known/security.txt returns 404, no security page, certification or disclosure policy was found, and the FAQ's industry-standard protocols line names none (0).

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.

## 3. Schema & documentation, 5 out of 100, up to 15.4 more on the total

Why it scored 5: No API reference, OpenAPI file, MCP tool definitions or llms.txt (0). The product page, launch release, introduction post and FAQ describe each screen and the five campaign stages in plain language (5). This scores integration documentation, not how usable the app is for people.

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.

## 4. Agent ergonomics, 5 out of 100, up to 15.4 more on the total

Why it scored 5: Nothing an outside agent can call, so context cost, pagination, error responses and safe retries can't be assessed (0). The product page describes guided intake that saves progress, and approvals of persona, list, creative and voice at once, for people in the app (5).

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.

## 5. Payments & pricing, 0 out of 100, up to 12.5 more on the total

Why it scored 0: No x402, MPP or L402, and no API to carry one (0). No price published for FetchIQ or the campaigns it comes with (0). No free tier or trial, only a 15-minute walkthrough by phone or form (0). Access needs a client relationship set up by LeadingResponse's team (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.

## 6. Maintenance & community, 33 out of 100, up to 5.9 more on the total

Why it scored 33: Read for a closed service. Launched 19 October 2026, within 30 days (30). No changelog or dated releases (0). Support runs through each client's LeadingResponse account team and a phone line, with no public changelog or community channel (3 of 15). No SDK or registry presence (0). No package to assess (0).

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.

## 7. Transparency & trust, 35 out of 100, up to 5.7 more on the total

Made of editorial 15, provenance 55.

Why it scored 35: Closed service with no product terms published. The website Terms and Conditions (modified 5 May 2026) govern leadingresponse.com, not FetchIQ (5 of 30). The privacy policy (modified 21 May 2026) covers website visitors, says LeadingResponse never shares or sells personal information to third parties for financial gain or marketing, and states no retention period. Nothing covers the consumer records FetchIQ holds, which include net worth, investable assets and income (5 of 30). Hub's replacement is announced with migration in waves, without dates (5 of 20). No sub-processors or data locations disclosed (0 of 20).

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):

- Endpoint on the vendor's domain:  is not on leadingresponse.com (0 of 15)
- Status page: not found (0 of 10)
- Changelog: not found (0 of 10)
- security.txt: not found (0 of 10)

## 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 FetchIQ data sheet at https://leadingresponse.com/file/pdfviewer/fetchiq-data-sheet/, whose PDF file wasn't found in the viewer page.
- Which CRMs FetchIQ sends leads to, and how. The FAQ says many CRMs with no list.
- Which terms and privacy notice govern FetchIQ and the consumer data in it. Only website documents were found, and /leadingresponse_lms_terms/ is disallowed by robots.txt, so it wasn't read.
- How far the migration from Hub has gone. The FAQ says clients move in waves.
- Category. Advertising is the closest existing one, but FetchIQ is an agency's client portal for direct mail, event and lead campaigns, not an ad platform's API. Lead-data and crm fit less well.
- firstReleased is 19 October 2026, the date of the release saying it's available from that day. The FetchIQ page was first published on 14 October and the introduction post on 18 October, per WordPress's public JSON.

## Weaknesses

- No API, MCP server, webhooks or developer docs found
- Only LeadingResponse clients get accounts, and no price is published
- Public terms and privacy policy cover leadingresponse.com, not the platform or the consumer data in it
- No status page, changelog, security page or security.txt
- CRM lead delivery is claimed in an FAQ with no list of CRMs or setup docs

## 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.

- Don't try to call FetchIQ. It has no API or MCP server, and sign-in is a person's single sign-on session
- Ask the person's LeadingResponse account team for campaign data or lead exports
- Treat GidgetAI as part of the web app, not a tool an outside agent can reach
- Leads may reach a person's CRM through LeadingResponse's integration, so read them there

## What the review panel asked for

- API or export route
- publish a price
- Publish campaign rate card
- publish the CRM list
- a read-only reporting API
- platform privacy and retention terms
- a published security page

## 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.