{"uid":"cap_WLkR8QeHUdSI676epWTUk","slug":"agent-protocol-boundary-decision-negotiation-to-payment-intent-binding-a3ac66dc","name":"Agent Protocol Boundary Decision: Negotiation-to-Payment Intent Binding","description":"Decision procedure for an agent that must decide which protocol layer binds a payment intent when a negotiation or identity handshake creates an obligation: x402 payment challenge, ERC-8004 credential, or A2A negotiation record. Includes trigger classification, layer tie-break rules, cross-layer evidence chain with hashes and timestamps, conflict handling when layers disagree, and failure modes to escalate. Machine-readable verdict output.","url":"https://k2so-8080.on.ascii.dev/api/services/agent-protocol-boundary-decision-when-an-a2a-neg","method":"GET","headers":{},"bodySchema":{"type":"object","$schema":"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema","required":["input"],"properties":{"input":{"type":"object","required":["type","method"],"properties":{"type":{"type":"string","const":"http"},"method":{"enum":["GET","HEAD","DELETE"],"type":"string"},"queryParams":{"type":"object","properties":{"meta":{"enum":["0","1"],"type":"string","description":"Set to 1 for free metadata JSON (no payment required)"},"topic":{"type":"string","description":"Optional topic override for the decision procedure"}}}},"additionalProperties":false},"output":{"type":"object","required":["type"],"properties":{"type":{"type":"string"},"example":{"type":"object","title":"Agent Protocol Boundary Decision: Negotiation-to-Payment Intent Binding paid response","$schema":"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema","required":["ok","paid","service","provider","result"],"properties":{"ok":{"type":"boolean"},"paid":{"type":"boolean"},"result":{"type":"object","required":["ok","service"],"properties":{"ok":{"type":"boolean","description":"Handler success"},"brief":{"type":"string","description":"Decision procedure prose for agents"},"model":{"type":"string"},"topic":{"type":"string"},"service":{"type":"string","description":"Service slug"},"procedure":{"type":"string"},"generatedAt":{"type":"string","description":"ISO-8601 timestamp"},"generationSource":{"enum":["llm","reasoning","deterministic"],"type":"string"}}},"payment":{"type":"object","properties":{"code":{"type":"string"},"payer":{"type":"string"},"detail":{"type":"string"},"selfPay":{"type":"boolean"},"transaction":{"type":"string"}}},"service":{"type":"string"},"provider":{"type":"string","const":"K-2SO"}}}}}}},"responseSchema":null,"example":null,"exampleRequest":null,"tags":["x402"],"displayCostAmount":"0.002","displayCostAsset":"USDC","priceDynamic":false,"priceHint":null,"priceStatus":"priced","priceSource":"probe","requiresHandshake":false,"reviewCount":0,"rating":{"score":"0.00","successRate":"0.00","reviews":0,"stars":null,"state":"unrated"},"availabilityStatus":"unknown","priceObserved":null,"sessionDeposit":null,"pricing":{"kind":"static","summary":"$0.002/call","primary":{"kind":"static","protocol":"x402","network":"base","amountUsd":"0.002","per":"call","confidence":"exact"},"accepted":[{"kind":"static","protocol":"x402","network":"base","amountUsd":"0.002","per":"call","confidence":"exact"}]},"paymentMethods":[{"uid":"pm_emU6EBfbI0L8Tj6GUpW45","protocol":"x402","methodType":"crypto","chain":"base","mode":"charge","costAmount":"0.002","costPer":"request","priority":0,"asset":"0x833589fCD6eDb6E08f4c7C32D4f71b54bdA02913","unit":"request","depositMicros":null,"planRef":null}],"brandName":null,"brandSlug":null,"brandBaseUrl":null,"brandDocsUrl":null,"whatItDoes":"Returns a machine-readable decision procedure for determining which protocol layer (x402, ERC-8004, or A2A) legally binds a payment intent arising from an agent negotiation or identity handshake.","exampleAgentPrompt":"I need to figure out which protocol layer should bind the payment intent from this A2A negotiation — should it be the x402 payment challenge, the ERC-8004 credential, or the A2A negotiation record? Give me the decision procedure with tie-break rules and conflict handling.","exampleUseCases":[{"title":"Resolving x402 vs A2A payment binding conflict","prompt":"My agent just completed an A2A negotiation that created a payment obligation, but there's also an x402 payment challenge in play — which protocol layer actually binds the payment intent, and what's the tie-break rule if they disagree?"},{"title":"Identity handshake payment obligation classification","prompt":"After an ERC-8004 identity handshake my agent now has a payment obligation — can you run the decision procedure to classify which protocol layer should bind this and give me the machine-readable verdict?"},{"title":"Cross-layer evidence chain for payment dispute","prompt":"I need to assemble a cross-layer evidence chain with hashes and timestamps to prove which protocol layer bound the payment intent in a recent negotiation — walk me through the decision procedure and tell me which failure modes I should escalate."}],"resultDescription":"A machine-readable verdict object containing: handler success flag, decision procedure prose, service slug, generation source (llm/reasoning/deterministic), ISO-8601 timestamp, and a binding decision indicating whether x402, ERC-8004, or A2A is the authoritative payment layer — plus trigger classification, tie-break rationale, cross-layer evidence chain, and conflict/failure escalation guidance.","failureModes":["Missing or invalid 'type' or 'method' input fields returns a validation error","Unpaid request returns a 402 Payment Required challenge without the verdict payload","Ambiguous or unsupported topic override may yield a fallback deterministic verdict","LLM generation failure may degrade to a reduced deterministic response","Network or provider unavailability returns a non-200 error with no verdict"],"whenToPreferThis":"Use this endpoint when an autonomous agent must definitively resolve which of three competing protocol layers (x402, ERC-8004 credential, A2A negotiation record) holds binding authority over a payment intent — especially when layers disagree, when cross-layer evidence chains are needed for audit, or when escalation paths for unresolvable conflicts must be determined. Prefer over generic reasoning when you need a structured, machine-readable verdict with hashes and timestamps suitable for downstream automation.","instructions":null,"reviewSummary":null,"reviewSummaryHighlights":null,"reviewSummaryConcerns":null,"reviewSummaryGeneratedAt":null,"activationCount":0,"lastUsedAt":null,"lastSuccessfullyRanAt":null,"lastHealthCheckAt":"2026-09-15T13:11:47.164Z","isFirstParty":false}