Service card
Tavily
tavily.com · Priced per call (estimate pending)
APIapi_key
Verified outcome telemetry
Probe + outcome evidence. Blank fields are honest gaps, not zeros.
Evidence for Tavily| Attestation | Seed (curated, not yet probed) |
|---|
| p50 latency | Not yet probed |
|---|
| p95 latency | Not yet probed |
|---|
| Success rate | Not yet probed |
|---|
| Schema conformance | Not yet probed |
|---|
| Idempotency | unknown |
|---|
| Replay safety | unknown |
|---|
| Last probe | Not yet probed |
|---|
Policy flags
external_network
Operator review checklist
Derived from service-card facts. These prompts guide review; they do not create benchmark evidence.
Source and route-surface drift
Use when endpoint surfaces, marketplace snapshots, or seller-controlled catalogs may change route decisions.
Endpoint URL is route-decision material.API route surface needs periodic verification.
Source and route-surface drift field prompts| source_name | Tie vendor claims to the feed or directory that made them. |
|---|
| source_service_count | Capture catalog size at review time. |
|---|
| source_endpoint_count | Detect callable-surface changes without a service-count change. |
|---|
| stackbroker_first_seen | Separate Stackbroker observation from vendor labels. |
|---|
| last_verified_route_surface | Mark the last date the callable surface was checked. |
|---|
| source_churn_summary | Summarize added, removed, or materially changed endpoints. |
|---|
| seller_controlled_ranking_risk | Flag when discovery, ranking, payment, and proof claims share an owner. |
|---|
- What changed since the prior snapshot: endpoints, pricing, auth, payment rail, receipt path, or policy terms?
- Can a buyer reconstruct which endpoint set was available when the route decision was made?
- Would a stale marketplace snapshot change the route decision or policy outcome?
Multi-rail payment metadata
Use when payment can flow through x402, cards, Stripe, hosted wallets, credits, stablecoins, Lightning, or several networks.
Price and settlement proof need a reviewable receipt path.
Multi-rail payment metadata field prompts| rail | Name the payment mechanism. |
|---|
| asset | Record the settlement asset, such as USDC, fiat, credits, or token units. |
|---|
| network | Capture Base, XRPL, Celo, Lightning, Stripe, card network, or other execution path. |
|---|
| facilitator | Identify the gateway, PSP, wallet provider, or merchant of record. |
|---|
| payment_requirement_url | Keep a machine-readable payment challenge or manifest reachable for audit. |
|---|
| quote_expiration | Prevent stale dynamic prices from being reused. |
|---|
| proof_type | Distinguish authorization, transaction hash, signed receipt, webhook, invoice, or ledger proof. |
|---|
| settlement_finality | Mark whether payment is authorized, pending, settled, reversible, or disputed. |
|---|
| refund_or_dispute_path | Capture what the buyer can do when payment succeeds but the service outcome fails. |
|---|
- Is the rail directly buyer-to-seller, or does a gateway intermediate custody or settlement?
- Does the quote bind amount, recipient, asset, network, service, and task context?
- Does the receipt prove both payment and the service operation, or only settlement?