An open study of 101 venture capital websites: 31 checks of what an AI agent can find, read and do on each. The weakest part is APIs, MCP and auth, where the average firm scores 2%.
The three highest scores of the 97 firms we could rank. The index is the average of five parts of a 31-check audit: discoverability, content for agents, bot access, APIs/MCP/auth and three agent tasks.
Fund size and assets under management as each firm states them, the ticket it writes, the companies it lists and its links. Display only: portfolio companies earn no points.
Not stated on its site.
“Initial ticket: EUR 1,000,000 to EUR 3,000,000.” source
Stage, in its words: “Marathon is a seed stage venture capital fund and a day one partner to Greek and European founders building global technology companies.”
Not stated on its site.
“Long-term capital: partnership from growth to exit: Initial investments targeting $25M+ with follow-on potential.” source
Stage, in its words: “Growth equity firm investing in market-leading B2B software companies across the AI technology stack.”
Not stated on its site.
No ticket size an agent could read.
Not stated on its site.
No ticket size an agent could read.
Stage, in its words: “Leading Seed and Series A Rounds Since 1970”
Not stated on its site.
No ticket size an agent could read.
Stage, in its words: “Menlo Ventures | Early-Stage Venture Capital Firm”
Not stated on its site.
No ticket size an agent could read.
Stage, in its words: “Antler invests at the pre-seed (inception) stage — before founders have a product, co-founder, or customers.”
Not stated on its site.
No ticket size an agent could read.
Not stated on its site.
No ticket size an agent could read.
Stage, in its words: “Mayfield is an early-stage VC investing $3 billion in AI companies, with 70% of investments made at inception.”
Not stated on its site.
No ticket size an agent could read.
Stage, in its words: “Pear VC is an early stage venture firm founded in 2013.”
Not stated on its site.
No ticket size an agent could read.
Stage, in its words: “Leading venture firm focused on early and early growth stage investments in European founded companies”
Not stated on its site.
No ticket size an agent could read.
Stage, in its words: “The Coral Capital funds invest at seed and early stage; the Coral Growth vehicles are”
Not stated on its site.
No ticket size an agent could read.
Stage, in its words: “Notion Capital is a London-based venture capital firm backing European business software and AI-native founders from early stage onwards, co…”
97 firms are ranked by index, then agent-task points, then the share of all checks passed. 4 had too much of their site blocked to score and are listed as insufficient data.
| Criteria | API / MCP | Pitch path | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marathon Venture Capital Athens, Greece | Greece | 78 | ✓ Machine-readable | ✓ Yes | ✓ Pitch tool | L4 | 64% | |
| Georgian Toronto, Canada | N. America | 70.7 | ✓ Machine-readable | ✓ Yes | ✗ Email or none | L4 | 64% | |
| Greenoaks San Francisco, United States | N. America | 64 | ✗ No | ✓ Yes | ✗ Email or none | L4 | 64% | |
| CRV Cambridge, United States | N. America | 52 | ✓ Machine-readable | ✗ No | ✗ Email or none | L3 | 40% | |
| Menlo Ventures Menlo Park, United States | N. America | 46 | ✓ Machine-readable | ✗ No | ✗ Email or none | L1 | 36% | |
| Antler Singapore | — | 45.3 | ✓ Machine-readable | ✗ No | ½ Web form | L1 | 34% | |
| Greylock Menlo Park, United States | N. America | 44.3 | ✗ No | ✗ No | ✗ Email or none | L3 | 36% | |
| Mayfield Menlo Park, United States | N. America | 42.7 | ½ Prose only | ✗ No | ✗ Email or none | L1 | 34% | |
| Pear VC Menlo Park, United States | N. America | 42.7 | ½ Prose only | ✗ No | ✗ Email or none | L1 | 34% | |
| Balderton Capital London, United Kingdom | Europe | 42 | ✓ Machine-readable | ✗ No | ✗ Email or none | L1 | 32% | |
| Coral Capital Tokyo, Japan | APAC | 42 | ✓ Machine-readable | ✗ No | ✗ Email or none | L1 | 32% | |
| Notion Capital London, United Kingdom | Europe | 42 | ✓ Machine-readable | ✗ No | ✗ Email or none | L1 | 32% | |
| Point Nine Berlin, Germany | Europe | 42 | ✓ Machine-readable | ✗ No | ✗ Email or none | L1 | 32% | |
| Vertex Ventures Southeast Asia & India Singapore | APAC | 42 | ✓ Machine-readable | ✗ No | ✗ Email or none | L1 | 32% | |
| Hoxton Ventures London, United Kingdom | Europe | 41.7 | ✗ No | ✗ No | ½ Web form | L1 | 34% | |
| Battery Ventures Boston, United States | N. America | 41.3 | ✗ No | ✗ No | ✗ Email or none | L1 | 36% | |
| Speedinvest Vienna, Austria | Europe | 40.3 | ✓ Machine-readable | ✗ No | ✗ Email or none | L2 | 32% | |
| Earlybird Berlin, Germany | Europe | 38 | ✓ Machine-readable | ✗ No | ✗ Email or none | L1 | 28% | |
| BECO Capital Dubai, United Arab Emirates | MENA | 36 | ✗ No | ✗ No | ½ Web form | L1 | 30% | |
| Insight Partners New York, United States | N. America | 36 | ½ Prose only | ✗ No | ✗ Email or none | L1 | 30% | |
| Uni.Fund Athens, Greece | Greece | 36 | ✗ No | ✗ No | ½ Web form | L1 | 30% | |
| GV Mountain View, United States | N. America | 35.3 | ✓ Machine-readable | ✗ No | ✗ Email or none | L1 | 28% | |
| Octopus Ventures London, United Kingdom | Europe | 35.3 | ½ Prose only | ✗ No | ½ Web form | L1 | 28% | |
| Index Ventures Geneva, Switzerland | Europe | 35.3 | ✗ No | ✗ No | ✗ Email or none | L1 | 28% | |
| Sequoia Capital Menlo Park, United States | N. America | 35.3 | ✗ No | ✗ No | ✗ Email or none | L1 | 28% |
Each row is a firm, each column a check. Hatched cells were blocked by a firewall or timed out: unverified, never counted as a fail.
Loading the matrix of 101 firms × 20 checks…
19 of 97 VC firms publish an llms.txt. 13 of 96 VC firms give an AI agent a structured way to pitch them.
Among regions with at least 5 firms, Greece has the highest average (35.7). Each dot is one firm.
Pick up to four firms. The radar shows their five parts against the field average; the table goes check by check, with the share of all firms that pass each one. Every comparison has its own link.
| Part and check | Marathon VC | Georgian | Greenoaks | Field |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agent-Ready Index | 78 | 70.7 | 64 | — |
| Discoverability · 20% | 60% | 80% | 60% | 48% |
| robots.txt | ✓ Pass | ✓ Pass | ✓ Pass | 79% |
| Sitemap | ✓ Pass | ✓ Pass | ✓ Pass | 90% |
| Link headers | ✓ Pass | ✓ Pass | ✓ Pass | 22% |
| DNS-AID | ✗ Fail | ✗ Fail | ✗ Fail | 1% |
| Organization identity | ✗ Fail | ✓ Pass | ✗ Fail | 46% |
| Content for agents · 20% | 100% | 67% | 67% | 40% |
| Markdown on request | ✓ Pass | ✓ Pass | ✓ Pass | 10% |
| llms.txt | ✓ Pass | ✗ Fail | ✗ Fail | 20% |
| Readable without JavaScript | ✓ Pass | ✓ Pass | ✓ Pass | 91% |
| Bot access · 20% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 46% |
| AI bot rules | ✓ Pass | ✓ Pass | ✓ Pass | 78% |
| Content Signals | ✓ Pass | ✓ Pass | ✓ Pass | 7% |
| AI usage signals | ✓ Pass | ✓ Pass | ✓ Pass | 7% |
| Web Bot Auth | – Not applicable | – Not applicable | – Not applicable | — |
| AI agents can get in | ✓ Pass | ✓ Pass | ✓ Pass | 92% |
| APIs, MCP and auth · 20% | 30% | 40% | 60% | 2% |
| API catalog | ✓ Pass | ✓ Pass | ✓ Pass | 3% |
| MCP server card | ✓ Pass | ✓ Pass | ✓ Pass | 3% |
| A2A agent card | ✗ Fail | ✗ Fail | ✗ Fail | 0% |
| Agent Skills | ✗ Fail | ✓ Pass | ✓ Pass | 2% |
| WebMCP | ✓ Pass | ✓ Pass | ✓ Pass | 3% |
| OAuth discovery | ✗ Fail | ✗ Fail | ✓ Pass | 4% |
| Protected Resource | ✗ Fail | ✗ Fail | ✓ Pass | 1% |
| auth.md | ✗ Fail | ✗ Fail | ✗ Fail | 0% |
| ARD manifest | ✗ Fail | ✗ Fail | ✗ Fail | 0% |
| Personal Agent Protocol | ✗ Fail | ✗ Fail | ✗ Fail | 0% |
| Agent tasks · 20% | 100% | 67% | 33% | 13% |
| Criteria for agents | ✓ Machine-readableMachine-readable | ✓ Machine-readableMachine-readable | ✗ NoNo | 16% |
| API / MCP access | ✓ YesYes | ✓ YesYes | ✓ YesYes | 3% |
| Pitch path agents can finish | ✓ Pitch toolPitch tool | ✗ Email or noneEmail or none | ✗ Email or noneEmail or none | 8% |
✓ pass · ✗ fail · ? could not be verified (blocked or timed out, never counted) · – does not apply. Agent tasks show each firm's grade.
The top-10 average is 52.8; the field average is 29.6.
Four more results from the same scan, each counted in its part of the index.
Marathon Venture Capital ranks first in the Agent-Ready VC Index with 78 out of 100, followed by Georgian (70.7) and Greenoaks (64). The index scores 101 venture capital firms as the average of five equal parts of a 31-check audit: discoverability, content for agents, bot access, APIs/MCP/auth, and three agent tasks (read the investment criteria, reach an API or MCP tools, find a structured pitch path).
3 of 97 firms publish an MCP server card: Greenoaks, Georgian, Marathon Venture Capital. An MCP server card lets AI agents discover the firm's Model Context Protocol tools.
19 of 97 firms (19.6%) publish an llms.txt, a Markdown summary written for AI agents and language models.
13 of 96 firms offer a structured pitch path an agent can find (a web form or better), and 5 of 12 of those forms sit behind a CAPTCHA an agent cannot finish. Marathon Venture Capital exposes a pitch tool through MCP or an API. We never submitted anything: forms were read, not filled.
4 of 98 firms block at least one major AI crawler in robots.txt, and 4 of 98 have a firewall that turns AI crawler user agents away while letting a browser through.
40 of 101 firms state criteria such as ticket size, stage or ownership somewhere an agent can read, but only 16 of 101 put them in a machine-readable channel (llms.txt, Markdown, structured data or an API).
Each homepage was scanned on 31 October 2026 with Reaudit's agent-readiness scanner (31 checks; it matched isitagentready.com on all 339 checks across 15 calibration sites) and a polite crawler: one request per second, GET requests only, nothing submitted. Blocked checks are marked unverified, not failed. Index = the average of five equal parts of a 31-check audit: discoverability, content for agents, bot access, APIs/MCP/auth and three agent tasks.
A curated global selection of 101 venture capital firms in eight regions, six of them from Athens. Not an official ranking.
Share of these checks a site passes: robots.txt, Sitemap, Link headers, DNS-AID, Organization identity.
Share of these checks a site passes: Markdown on request, llms.txt, Readable without JavaScript.
Share of these checks a site passes: AI bot rules, Content Signals, AI usage signals, Web Bot Auth, AI agents can get in.
Share of these checks a site passes: API catalog, MCP server card, A2A agent card, Agent Skills, WebMCP, OAuth discovery, Protected Resource, auth.md, ARD manifest, Personal Agent Protocol.
Can an agent read the investment criteria (machine-readable 1, page prose 0.5, none 0), reach an API or MCP tools (1 or 0), and find a structured pitch path (a pitch tool 1, a web form 0.5, email only or none 0)? Tools were read, never called; forms were read, never submitted.
Commerce standards (x402, MPP, UCP, ACP, AP2) do not apply to VC firms. Web Bot Auth counts only where a site publishes it. For comparison, the data also gives each firm's score on the 17 standards the public isitagentready.com checker runs.
A check that timed out, returned 403/429 or met a firewall challenge is marked unverified and left out of the score. If the server answers a path that cannot exist with 403 too, a 403 means "not there". A part with nothing verified is left out and the others share its weight; firms with more than half of their checks unverified are listed as insufficient data, unranked.
Reaudit's agent-readiness scanner v2 (31 checks; it matched isitagentready.com on all 339 checks across 15 calibration sites, with a browser render). 1 request per second per site, GET/HEAD only, nothing submitted. Scanned 31 October 2026 from a residential connection in Athens, Greece. The same scan runs again every week; a person reviews each weekly edition before it goes live, and every edition stays in the history (download above).
A curated global selection of 101 venture capital firms in eight regions, six of them from Athens. Not an official ranking. openfund.com now hosts a crypto trading app ("Openfund, built on DeSo"), not the Greek VC Openfund; replaced with another Athens-based fund (checked 2026-10-31). Left out: SoftBank Vision Fund is an investment vehicle of SoftBank Group rather than an independent venture capital firm. Every claim links to a receipt: the URL checked, the HTTP status, the time and a hash of the response.
A firm's city is the headquarters it names on its own site, its imprint or registered office, the main office in its SEC adviser record, or Wikidata; otherwise the first office it lists. Kibo Ventures, Velocity Partners, Peak XV Partners, STV state no city we could confirm, so they are not on the map. Fund size, ticket, stage and portfolio are shown in each firm's own words and earn no points. Every pitch form was checked by hand; newsletter, filter, consent and general contact forms do not count.
Want to be the firm an AI agent can work with? Reaudit's team gets your site there and shows the result with the same 31 checks used in this study, before and after.
Or write to rose@reaudit.io
Research and data: Rose Samaras, Reaudit. An open study: a curated global selection, not an official ranking. Data as of 31 October 2026; the data and every receipt are free to download and check.