Zeal

# Fix list: Zeal

From Anchor Terminal's listing at https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/zeal, the October 2026 research run, assessed 8 October 2026. Grade E, 45.4 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 Zeal: 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, 0 out of 100, up to 12.5 more on the total

Why it scored 0: Read with the hosted rubric. No x402, MPP or L402 (0). No price is published. www.zeal.com/pricing returns 404 and the site asks for a demo (0). No free tier or self-serve trial. Test keys exist only after Zeal's team creates a partner account (0). A person has to contact sales and log in to the Partner Dashboard for a key (0). Total 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. Reliability, 42 out of 100, up to 11.6 more on the total

Why it scored 42: Read with the hosted rubric, on the partner REST API. No status page found. None is linked from the site, the docs or the help centre, and status.zeal.com did not complete a TLS handshake on 8 October 2026 (0). With no page there is no readable incident history (5). The rate limit is published as 100 requests a second in both Test and Production (15). The error page recommends exponential backoff on 429 and an `x-idempotency-key` header is honoured for 24 hours, but no Retry-After header is documented (12 of 15). No SLA found on the public site (0). The core REST API is generally available. Endpoints marked Early Access and the agent and MCP endpoints are enabled per partner (10). Total 42.

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. Security & auth, 34 out of 100, up to 11.6 more on the total

Why it scored 34: One Test key and one Production key per partner account, sent as a Bearer header, rollable from the dashboard with the old key invalidated at once. A key reaches every employer company under the partner and has no scopes, so we scored between one all-powerful key and plain revocable keys (15 of 30). No read-only key. `approval_required` holds a cheque or contractor payment until `approved` is set, and the Test environment moves no money (8 of 20). The API returns names, addresses and metadata written by workers and employers, and the agent and MCP endpoints return model-written text, with no guidance on untrusted content found (3 of 15). No audit log or per-call log was found in the docs (0). The legal page states SOC 2 Type II, AWS hosting, TLS 1.2 and AES-256, with no report, trust centre, disclosure policy, bounty or security.txt (8 of 20). Total 34.

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.

## 4. Agent ergonomics, 63 out of 100, up to 6 more on the total

Why it scored 63: Responses can't be trimmed by field. `limit` is on a few list endpoints and one webhook has a lite form with IDs only (8 of 25). Cursor pagination with `start_at`, `limit` and `meta.next`, on some endpoints only, with filters by company, employee, date and status (10 of 20). Errors come as `{message, code}` with 116 documented codes, several of which name the fix, such as code 89 for a date past the 2 PM cut-off (17 of 20). `x-idempotency-key` for 24 hours on writes, and the SDKs retry 408, 429 and 5xx twice with backoff. The spec declares the header nowhere (16 of 20). TypeScript and Python SDKs at 0.2.1, generated with Fern and not mentioned in the docs. Most calls need both `companyID` and, at partner level, `partnerID`, and previews and reports are asynchronous jobs (12 of 15). Total 63.

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. Schema & documentation, 68 out of 100, up to 5.2 more on the total

Why it scored 68: Three public OpenAPI 3.1 specs at docs.zeal.com/openapi, the main one with 128 paths and 177 operations (25). docs.zeal.com/llms.txt, llms-full.txt (514 KB) and a Markdown copy of every page (10). 99 of 177 operations carry a description, 18 have no summary and 5 are titled "Copy of", and pages rarely say when not to use an endpoint (10 of 20). 359 `required` lists and 120 enums, with 212 of 228 parameters described, against 82 objects with no declared properties and string-typed dates (10 of 15). 2,088 examples in the spec and a table of 116 numbered error codes with HTTP statuses. 429 is not declared in the spec (13 of 15). The API has no version in the path or a header, the spec version is a fixed 1.0, and the changelog URL the site links to returns 404 (0). Total 68.

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, 51 out of 100, up to 4.3 more on the total

Made of editorial 38, provenance 64.

Why it scored 51: Editorial half only. A closed service. The public terms are a website Terms of Use and Payroll Terms between Puzzl Group Inc. and a partner's client. The partner agreement is not public (12 of 30). The privacy notice, last updated 16 January 2026, keeps data as long as necessary with no periods, lists vendor categories only, and still gives a privacy@joinpuzzl address in one place. The Payroll Terms let Puzzl use aggregate or de-identified data for its own purposes. No DPA found (12 of 30). One dated deprecation, the `garnishment` deduction type with a sunset of 15 October 2026, and no written policy (8 of 20). AWS hosting and Bangor Savings Bank are named. No sub-processor list or data location statement found (6 of 20). Total 38.

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: read, states 6 of the 7 things a reader expects, and has 2 clauses that cost points (5.1 of 10)
- Privacy policy: read, states 7 of the 8 things a reader expects (9.3 of 10)
- Status page: not found (0 of 10)
- Changelog: not found (0 of 10)
- security.txt: not found (0 of 10)

## 7. Maintenance & community, 61 out of 100, up to 3.4 more on the total

Why it scored 61: With the changelog returning 404, the newest dated public release is the Python SDK zeal-api-sdk 0.2.1 on 31 July 2026, 69 days before the check (20 of 30). npm shows @zeal-api/sdk 0.1.0, 0.2.0 and 0.2.1 on 28, 29 and 30 July 2026, three releases inside 90 days, all in one week (20). A closed service with a help centre and support@zeal.com, and no working public changelog or community channel (5 of 25). Official SDKs in two languages, both at 0.2.1 and not referenced by the docs (12 of 15). The SDK repositories hold tests and a Dependabot branch but no CI workflow, and the Python package declares no licence (4 of 10). Total 61.

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: whether status.zeal.com is a live status page. It did not complete a TLS handshake from our network, and no status link was found on the site
- unchecked: weekly downloads for zeal-api-sdk on PyPI. pypistats returned no data
- The tools, schemas and annotations behind the /mcp endpoint. The spec names four tools and says access needs an Agent-enabled key from Zeal
- Prices, any SLA and the partner agreement, none of which are public
- Whether the Partner Dashboard keeps an audit log of API calls
- The date of the last API change. The changelog URL returns 404 and the API root shows only a build hash
- Whether Zeal has a SOC 2 report or sub-processor list available under NDA

## Weaknesses

- No self-serve signup. Zeal's team creates the partner account after a demo request, and no price is published
- One test key and one production key per partner account, with no scopes and no read-only key
- No status page found, and the changelog linked from the home page and llms.txt returns 404
- The API has no version in the path or a header, and the main spec has 18 operations with no summary
- Webhooks carry the shared secret itself in `Puzzl-Signature`, not a signature of the payload
- No security.txt, disclosure policy, sub-processor list or DPA found on the public site

## 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.

- Use the Test API key until a person has approved live payroll. Error code 0 (403) means the account has no production access
- Send `companyID` on almost every call and `partnerID` on partner-level calls, in the body for POST and PATCH and the query for GET
- Create cheques with `approval_required: true`, run POST /preview/checks, then PATCH /employeeCheck with `approved: true`. Without the flag Zeal processes pending cheques automatically
- Send `x-idempotency-key` on every create so a retry within 24 hours doesn't pay twice
- Previews and reports are jobs. Keep the `job_id` and poll GET /preview or GET /reports, or wait for the Job Queue webhook
- Check dates must be bank days and submitted before 2 PM Pacific two bank days ahead, or the call fails with code 89

## 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.