People Data Labs

# Fix list: People Data Labs

From Anchor Terminal's listing at https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/people-data-labs, the October 2026 research run, assessed 8 October 2026. Grade B, 64.2 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 People Data Labs: 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. Security & auth, 43 out of 100, up to 10 more on the total

Why it scored 43: One revocable API key type with no scopes, with 1, 3 or 5 active keys by plan (20), less 10 because the docs show the key as `api_key` in the URL query string (10 of 30). The data endpoints only read, and there is no restricted or per-endpoint key (12 of 20). Records come from public and third-party sources and include free-text fields, and no prompt-injection guidance was found (2 of 15). The dashboard Usage tab and per-call credit headers give the operator visibility, with no audit log found (7 of 15). The security page states SOC 2 Type 2 and ISO 27001 compliance and quarterly external penetration tests. No security.txt, bug bounty or disclosure policy was found (12 of 20).

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.

## 2. Payments & pricing, 35 out of 100, up to 8.1 more on the total

Why it scored 35: No x402, MPP or L402 (0). Plan entry prices and the credit rule are public, $98 a month for 350 person records and $100 for 1,000 company records, one credit per match. The volume ladder and field-bundle prices sit in the dashboard (15 of 20). A free plan of 100 records a month, and the quickstart's signup steps name no card. Contact fields are obfuscated on it (20). A person signs up in a browser to get a key (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.

## 3. Schema & documentation, 70 out of 100, up to 4.9 more on the total

Why it scored 70: No OpenAPI file was found at the docs root or in the docs index. A public Postman collection and Elasticsearch mappings for each dataset stand in (8 of 25). llms.txt on the docs site and a Markdown twin of every page (10). Each API has overview, reference, input, output, examples and FAQ pages that state purpose and billing (15 of 20). Enrichment inputs are typed with canonical value lists, while search takes an Elasticsearch 7.7 query or an SQL string, both free-form (9 of 15). Examples in five languages and a six-row error table with sample bodies (13 of 15). A `v5` path, numbered dataset versions and monthly release notes back to 2019 (15).

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. Reliability, 78 out of 100, up to 4.4 more on the total

Why it scored 78: Statuspage at status.peopledatalabs.com with a component for each API and the sandbox, and history back to 2021 (20). Two incidents in the 90 days to 8 October 2026, both minor. Requests carrying a location failed for about 10 minutes during the 15 September release, and IP enrichment was slow or timing out on 9 August, duration not given (25 of 30). Rate limits are published with numbers, 100 a minute free and 1,000 paid on person enrichment, 10 a minute on person search, five on the sandbox (15). A `429` body and the `x-ratelimit-reset` header are documented with a fixed-window explanation, and no back-off or retry guidance was found (8 of 15). No SLA was found in the agreement or on the pricing page (0). The v5 endpoints are generally available (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.

## 5. Agent ergonomics, 77 out of 100, up to 3.7 more on the total

Why it scored 77: `data_include` selects or excludes fields, `size` caps records at 1 to 100, gzip is supported and a 1 MB response limit is documented (20 of 25). Search pages with `scroll_token` and filters on any mapped field, with `dataset` to narrow the source (18 of 20). Errors carry a status, a `type` and a short message across six documented codes, with `404` meaning no match (13 of 20). The API is read-only and charges only on a `200`, so a repeat is safe, though no retry guidance or idempotency key was found (12 of 20). Enrichment needs one identifier, defaults are sensible, and SDKs exist for Python, JavaScript, Ruby, Go and Rust (14 of 15).

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.

## 6. Transparency & trust, 67 out of 100, up to 2.9 more on the total

Made of editorial 53, provenance 80.

Why it scored 67: Closed service under a published Services Subscription Agreement and Acceptable Data Use Policy that name People Data Labs, Inc. (15 of 30). The privacy policy, a GDPR Article 14 notice and a DPA are published. The DPA commits to deleting customer personal data within 90 days of termination and to breach notice within 72 hours, and describes blind logging of API inputs. Retention in the privacy policy is described by criteria with no periods, and the text we read carried no effective date (20 of 30). The agreement says data and services may be modified without prior notice. Release notes flag parameters that will lose support, such as `from` on search, with no dates or policy (6 of 20). The DPA names Amazon Web Services and points to the trust centre for other sub-processors, which our reader could not load. The security page places hosting in Oregon and Northern California (12 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):

- Domain age: peopledatalabs.com, registered 2017-07-16 (9 years) (11 of 15)
- Terms of service: published, but our reader couldn't read it (7 of 10)
- Privacy policy: published, but our reader couldn't read it (7 of 10)
- security.txt: not found (0 of 10)

## 7. Maintenance & community, 79 out of 100, up to 1.8 more on the total

Why it scored 79: The latest release notes are dated 15 September 2026 and the JavaScript SDK 14.6.0 followed on 16 September (30). Release notes on 21 July, 18 August and 15 September, plus three JavaScript SDK releases in the same 90 days (20). Public release notes, a Canny board for bugs and feature requests and a support address. We did not test support (11 of 15). Five official SDKs. JavaScript is current, while the Python package on PyPI is 6.4.13 from 12 January 2026 and the repository's April job posting commit is not published (11 of 15). Both SDK repositories have test and publish workflows and dependency updates (7 of 10).

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 sub-processor list and any report details on trust.peopledatalabs.com, which is drawn by script and showed our reader only its title
- unchecked: whether the free signup asks for a card. The quickstart names no card step and we did not open the dashboard signup form
- unchecked: the Pro volume ladder, overage price for self-serve accounts and field-bundle prices, which are shown in the dashboard
- The privacy policy text we read refers to an effective date above it, and the data file carried no date
- The company enrichment reference states the free rate limit as 10 a minute, the person enrichment reference as 100. We recorded both
- No OpenAPI file and no MCP server were found in the docs index. We did not search beyond the vendor's docs and GitHub SDK repositories
- The lead was right on the interface. It left out the job posting search, IP enrichment and sandbox endpoints

## Weaknesses

- No OpenAPI file was found. The machine-readable material is a Postman collection and Elasticsearch mappings
- API keys have no scopes, and the docs show the key passed as `api_key` in the URL query string
- The Services Subscription Agreement says data and services may be modified without prior notice
- Free-plan records have emails, phone numbers and addresses obfuscated, and person search defaults to 10 requests a minute
- No SLA, security.txt, bug bounty or disclosure policy was found in the reviewed pages

## 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.

- Send the key in the `X-Api-Key` header. The `api_key` query parameter puts the secret in URLs and logs
- Build and test queries against `https://sandbox.api.peopledatalabs.com/v5/...` first. It costs no credits and allows five calls a minute
- Set `size` deliberately on search. Every record returned costs one credit, and responses over 1 MB fail
- Treat `404` on enrichment as no match, not an error, and `402` as credits exhausted. Neither is worth a retry
- On `429`, wait until the `x-ratelimit-reset` time. Limits are fixed-window per key and per endpoint

## 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.