MetaLend
MetaLend is a DeFi "earn and spend" platform that aggregates lending pools across protocols (Aave, Morpho, Euler) and chains (Base, Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum, Linea) behind a single cross-chain Rebalancing API. It continuously repositions user-approved, self-custodied capital into the best-yielding pools while keeping funds instantly spendable via a debit card. The API is notably agent-native: it serves an AI agent flow guide at GET /SKILL.md, ships SIWE challenge/verify JWT auth with EIP-191/EIP-712/EIP-3009 wallet signing, and gates its services directory behind an x402 (HTTP 402) micropayment in USDC on Base. Smart contracts are audited by Sherlock. Backed by Pantera Capital.
Real signal across most facets with visible, nameable gaps — the contract exists but is thin, or the portal is good while governance and commercial terms are absent.
API Evangelist profiles MetaLend the way a machine reads it — 14 machine-readable artifacts across 10 APIs, pulled from the provider's own public surface and indexed so a developer, an analyst, or an AI agent can evaluate it against every other provider on the network.
Every provider in the network is reduced to the same set of machine-readable artifacts — OpenAPI contracts, event specifications, GraphQL schemas, runnable collections, pricing and rate-limit signals, security posture, OAuth scopes, and the agent surfaces (MCP servers and skills) that let software drive the API on its own. We profile them because the interface is the part of a company you can actually inspect: it is a truer signal of what a provider does than any marketing page. From those artifacts we compute the Kin Score — MetaLend scores 53.2/100 (developing), with a separate agent-readiness read of 65/100 (agent native). The full breakdown is below, followed by every artifact we hold — each card links through to its machine-readable definition on apis.io.
Kin Score
This is the API Evangelist rating — a single, repeatable read computed from the artifacts on this page. Green fill is points earned; the red track is points possible, so every bar shows earned-versus-possible at a glance.
Kin Score
How this is scored →scored 2026-07-27 · rubric v0.5
How we profile MetaLend
Each block below is one kind of artifact we hold for MetaLend. For each we say what it is and why it earns a place in the profile, then list every one we've indexed — capped at two rows, scroll within the panel for the rest.
APIs 10
Each API is captured as its own OpenAPI definition — every operation, parameter, and response. This is the single most useful machine-readable description of what an API does, and it's what lets us score, lint, mock, and generate against it without asking the provider for anything.
Individual APIs this provider publishes, each with its own machine-readable definition.
MetaLend AI Agent Guide API
Machine-readable flow guide for AI agents — signing formats, wizard flows, and integration gotchas
MetaLend Auth API
Get challenge / verify challenge authentication
MetaLend Balances API
Balance queries across pools and protocols
MetaLend Deposits API
Deposit operations for rebalancing
MetaLend Pools API
Protocol and pool information
MetaLend Rewards API
Reward aggregation and claim data
MetaLend Services API
The Services API from MetaLend — 1 operation(s) for services.
MetaLend Transaction Costs API
Transaction cost queries
MetaLend User Configuration API
User rebalancer configuration management
MetaLend Withdrawals API
Withdrawal operations from pools
Scroll within the panel for all 10 ·
MCP Servers 1
Model Context Protocol servers expose these APIs directly to AI agents. We profile them because agent-native access is the fastest-growing way this provider's capabilities actually get used.
Model Context Protocol servers that expose these APIs to AI agents.
metalend-mcp.yml
MCP SERVERSecurity Posture 2
Authentication, domain security, vulnerability disclosure, and trust-center signals — the evidence that a provider takes security seriously enough to document it. We profile it because you can't govern what you can't see.
Authentication, domain security, vulnerability disclosure, and trust-center signals.
Agentic Access 1
An x-agentic-access contract marks which operations are safe for an agent to run on its own and which need a human in the loop. It is the difference between an API an agent can use and one it can use safely.
Recommended x-agentic-access execution contracts for AI agents.
Resources
Every other property we hold for MetaLend — documentation, portals, status pages, policies, and corporate surface — grouped by the job it does, following the integrator's arc from getting started to running in production.
Get Started 4
Portal, sign-up, and the first successful call
Documentation 2
Reference material describing how the API behaves
Agent Surfaces 4
MCP servers, agent skills, and machine-readable catalogs
Design & Contract 5
Pagination, idempotency, versioning, errors, and events
Access & Security 3
Authentication, authorization, and security posture
Operate 2
Status, limits, changes, and where to get help
Commercial 3
Pricing, plans, and the legal terms of use
Company 3
The organization behind the API
Other 1
Properties that don't map to a standard resource type
← All providers · Data indexed from github.com/api-evangelist/metalend · machine-readable index on apis.io