Yapily by Yapily

# Fix list: Yapily

From Anchor Terminal's listing at https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/yapily, the October 2026 research run, assessed 1 October 2026. Grade C, 57.8 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 Yapily: 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. Payments & pricing, 10 out of 100, up to 11.3 more on the total

Why it scored 10: No x402, MPP or L402 (0). Pricing is tailored with a contact form (0). A free, self-serve Console account with the Modelo sandbox bank and no card mentioned; no free live tier (10 of 20). A person signs up in the Console (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.

## 2. Security & auth, 37 out of 100, up to 11 more on the total

Why it scored 37: HTTP basic auth with an application id and secret, one pair per application, and a secret can be revoked and regenerated with the id unchanged; no scopes or permissions per application found (20 of 30). Consents are per account-auth-request and cover the scopes asked for, but revocation happens only at the bank and one application secret can call data and payments (10 of 20). Returns bank records with merchant-written descriptions; no guidance on treating them as untrusted (7 of 15). No operator request log found (0 of 15). No security.txt on www.yapily.com, /security returns 404, and no disclosure policy, bug bounty or certification found (0 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.

## 3. Reliability, 55 out of 100, up to 9 more on the total

Why it scored 55: Statuspage at status.yapily.com with history back to 20 October 2025 (20). From 3 July to 1 October two incidents, both marked major. An intermittent API disruption on 8 July lasted 6 minutes (19:40 to 19:46 UTC, posted the next day), and a payment initiation disruption on 17 August ran about 1 hour 40 minutes. One major by our definition, on payments (10 of 30). No rate limit numbers published; the errors page documents a 429 with code 10002 for the banks' unattended limit (3 of 15). The errors page gives a Fibonacci backoff for polling (1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21 and 34 seconds) and says to wait on 10002, and the payment execution guide covers idempotency keys (12 of 15). No SLA found (0). 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.

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

Why it scored 77: Transactions take from, before, limit (1 to 1000) and sort, so a call can be sized (20 of 25). offset pagination with date filters (18 of 20). Error bodies say whether the user, the bank or Yapily caused the failure, with a tracingId and an issues array (18 of 20). Reads are safe to repeat and payments take idempotency keys (16 of 20). Basic auth and optional parameters with defaults, but the Node SDK hasn't had a new version tag since January 2022 (its code was regenerated in June 2025) and the Python SDK isn't on PyPI (5 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.

## 5. Maintenance & community, 67 out of 100, up to 2.9 more on the total

Why it scored 67: Changelog entries in September 2026, including a new endpoint for extending commercial VRP consents (30). Ten dated changelog entries in July, August and September (20). Closed service with a public changelog and support; GitHub issue replies weren't sampled because the GitHub API wasn't open to us (12 of 15). The Node SDK's newest tag is 1.259.0 from January 2022, though the code was regenerated on 30 June 2025, and the Python SDK's last commit is from November 2022 (3 of 15). No CI workflow in the Node SDK repo (2 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.

## 6. Transparency & trust, 73 out of 100, up to 2.4 more on the total

Made of editorial 70, provenance 76.

Why it scored 73: Closed service with published website terms, end-user terms and a Data Handling Agreement. The Node SDK repo carries an MIT LICENCE while its package.json says `Unlicense` (15). Privacy notice, Data Handling Agreement and a subprocessor list are all public; no retention periods found on the pages we read (20 of 30). Breaking changes are flagged in the changelog, such as legacy Cajasur consents invalidated in June 2026, and deprecated endpoints are marked, but the categorisation feature's deprecation says Date TBC and there's no notice-period policy (10 of 20). Ten subprocessors with locations, dated 01/10/2026, including Google Cloud in London with backup in Belgium and two US processors under standard contractual terms (20). Regulatory standing counts here as an addition to the checklist (+5 for a named regulator with a register number, +3 for a named regulator alone). The legal page says Yapily Connect Ltd is FCA-regulated under 827001 and Yapily Connect UAB by the Bank of Lithuania under LB002045, while Yapily Ltd, the contracting parent, isn't regulated (+5).

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: yapily.com, registered 2018-01-23 (8 years) (11 of 15)
- Changelog: not found (0 of 10)
- security.txt: not found (0 of 10)

## 7. Schema & documentation, 88 out of 100, up to 2 more on the total

Why it scored 88: OpenAPI file at docs.yapily.com/openapi-converted.json, per the 30 September check (25). llms.txt, llms-full.txt and a docs MCP server (10). Reference pages state purpose; deprecated endpoints are marked, such as Get Categorised Transactions (15 of 20). Typed inputs with limits, for example transactions limit between 1 and 1000 and a sort enum, in the spec-generated SDK (12 of 15). The errors page documents two error formats with tracingId, source (USER, INSTITUTION or YAPILY) and nine HTTP statuses (14 of 15). A changelog with entries every month to September 2026 and breaking changes flagged; no versioning policy page found (12 of 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.

## 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: whether the Console shows a per-request log to operators
- unchecked: the per-product uptime figures quoted in the listing; we didn't load the status page's uptime view
- Whether Yapily holds ISO 27001 or SOC 2; nothing we read says so
- unchecked: GitHub issue responsiveness on the SDK repositories (the GitHub API wasn't available to us)

## Weaknesses

- No public pricing; live access starts with a sales form
- No security.txt, security page, disclosure policy or certification found
- Consent revocation only at the bank, so the API may keep reporting `AUTHORIZED`
- No rate limit numbers published
- Node SDK's newest tag is from January 2022 and the Python SDK isn't on PyPI

## 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.

- Read llms-full.txt once and cache it; it's the whole documentation in one fetch
- Add the Modelo sandbox in the Console before your first account-auth-request, or institutions comes back empty
- Treat a 403 on a data call as a revoked or expired consent and send the user back through authorisation
- Check the error source field first; USER and INSTITUTION failures won't clear on retry
- In the UK, call extend-consent with lastConfirmedAt before the reconfirmBy date, or the consent lapses at 90 days

## What the review panel asked for

- dated categorisation sunset
- tagged sdk releases
- per-application scopes
- consent revocation 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.