For enterprises

You buy and sell through agents. Prove what you bought, and what you sold.

Buying and selling are opposite positions in the same transaction, so each has its own track. The same Agentic Transaction Record (ATR) answers both.

Automatic Renewal, Liability Cap, Arbitration & Venue, Data & IP Rights, Indemnity You Granted, Licence Restrictions, Unilateral Amendment, Governing Law

Limitation of Liability, Refund & Cancellation, Acceptable Use, Warranty Disclaimer, Governing Law & Venue, Indemnification, Service Levels, Licence Scope

When your agents buy

Your agent just bought something. Do you know what you agreed to buy? Can you prove it?

You accept terms like these hundreds of times a day now, through agents, at machine speed. Do you know which ones you accepted? From whom?

When you clicked, you saw the box and you remembered. Your agent does not click, does not remember, and does not stop. The obligations are the same size either way.

When your agents sell

Your agent accepted USDC using x402. Can you prove the terms and conditions for what you sold?

Your lawyer wrote these. Can you prove which of them governed the sale your agent just made?

A price and a wallet address are not a contract. Every other sale your business makes carries the clauses above; the ones your agent makes settle in seconds, to a counterparty you have never met, and point at nothing.

Four purchases

A dataset
$4.00
Your agent paid $4.00 for a dataset. The seller’s terms grant them a perpetual licence to every query you send and the right to publish aggregate results.
You now hold that obligation. When did you take it on?
no record
A subscription
$29
Your agent bought a month of an API at $29. The terms auto-renew annually after the first period and require 60 days’ notice to stop.
Which of your agents is allowed to commit you for a year?
no record
A service call
$0.02
Your agent spent $0.02 on an enrichment call and sent a customer email address to do it. The seller’s terms place the data controller obligations on you.
Can you show your counsel which sellers you accepted that from?
no record
A dispute
A seller delivered something unusable and will not refund. Their terms specify arbitration in a jurisdiction you would never have agreed to, and a liability cap of the amount paid.
Did you agree to that venue, or did nobody check?
no record

Every one of these settled in under a second, for a trivial amount, and left behind an obligation that is not trivial at all. That asymmetry is the whole problem.

Four sales

Market data · API
$0.008
An agent you have never heard of called your pricing endpoint 4,180 times last month at $0.008 a call. Your terms say the data is for internal use and may not be redistributed. That is $33.44 of revenue and a redistribution clause.
Can you show the clause travelled with any of those 4,180 calls?
no record
Inference · SaaS
An agent ran 2,900 completions through your model endpoint and sent customer records in the prompts. Your data-processing terms set what you may retain and for how long, and they were revised in June.
Which version governed the calls made in May?
no record
Licensed content
$0.25
A research agent pulled 140 full-text articles at $0.25 each. Your licence permits quotation, not reproduction, and forbids training use.
If those articles surface in a model, what do you point at?
no record
Goods · merchant
A procurement agent bought 60 units at your volume price and had them shipped. Your terms set a 14-day return window and cap liability at the purchase price.
Can you prove the buyer’s agent was given those terms before it paid?
no record

In every one of these the payment is unambiguous — the amount, the asset, the wallet, the timestamp. It is the other half of the transaction that has nothing attached to it.

Three questions, answered

1
Did you get the terms the seller advertised, or a different version?
The ATR hash they published and the document they served are two different things. If those disagree, something changed between the offer and your payment.
What you agreed to buy — the gate fetches the document the seller actually serves and recomputes its digest against the ATR hash they advertised. Source: @integraledger/terms README⁠ (opens in a new tab)
2
Did anything check before you paid?
Not written to a log afterwards. Refused beforehand, while saying no still costs you nothing.
That it was checked before you paid — the signer is a port the gate holds. On a decline it is never called. Structural, not something anyone has to remember. Source: @integraledger/terms README⁠ (opens in a new tab) · Source: lcp docs: the buyer gate⁠ (opens in a new tab)
3
Can you show someone else what you allowed your agents to accept?
That you can show it to someone — the exact ATR your agent compared, kept byte for byte, and the payment that carries its ATR hash. What your agents may accept is decided by whatever policy engine you choose, before the key; Integra’s software records the proof of what was agreed. Source: @integraledger/terms README⁠ (opens in a new tab) · Source: LCP §4⁠ (opens in a new tab)

A seller can change their terms page. They cannot change what you agreed to buy.

@integraledger/terms README⁠ (opens in a new tab) · lcp docs: the buyer gate⁠ (opens in a new tab) · LCP §4⁠ (opens in a new tab)

Exhibit The buyer’s gate

The standard

The buyer gate (@integraledger/terms) recomputes the atrHash from the bytes the seller served and halts before any signing key is invoked if they disagree. It holds no policy: it does not read or judge the ATR’s content, applies no spending limit, and carries no business or legal logic. Source: LCP §5.3⁠ (opens in a new tab) · Source: lcp docs: the buyer gate⁠ (opens in a new tab) · Source: @integraledger/terms README⁠ (opens in a new tab)

LCP §4 describes a buyer policy and requires none in particular: the level you require, the jurisdictions and dispute methods you accept, commitment caps and a signing threshold, decided on typed fields — the discovery document’s jurisdiction and dispute method, the atrHash, the amounts — never on the prose of the terms, which narrows what a prompt injection can reach. Those fields are advertising: if the agent proceeds, the terms document governs. Source: LCP §4⁠ (opens in a new tab) · Source: LCP §4.2⁠ (opens in a new tab) · Source: LCP §4.3⁠ (opens in a new tab)

In the standard’s model, approval is evaluated per transaction, not per counterparty: a seller you have never met passes when its terms meet the bar your policy sets, and is refused when they do not. Your agents run whatever policy engine you choose in front of the gate. Source: LCP §4.3⁠ (opens in a new tab)

The ATR hash is the atrHash: 0x and 64 hex digits, compared as bytes. An auditor recomputes the SHA-256 of the ATR and reads it back from the payment — and on some rails from the settled transaction alone. Source: LCP §5.5⁠ (opens in a new tab) · Source: lcp docs: recovering H from the chain alone⁠ (opens in a new tab) · Source: LCP §12.2⁠ (opens in a new tab)

Delegated authority: authorization protocols say who may act. On the AP2, Verifiable Intent and Visa TAP pairings, the mandate or the agent’s signature commits to a checkout or a field that carries the hash. Source: LCP §9⁠ (opens in a new tab) · Source: lcp docs: agentic checkouts⁠ (opens in a new tab)

The code

Compiled against the published packages when the site is built.

The buyer’s gate: it compares the ATR with the ATR hash before your agent’s wallet signs, and keeps the bytes

src/snippets/buyer.ts

// The buyer's agent, before its wallet signs: the gate fetches the ATR from its link, hashes the exact bytes, compares
// them with the ATR hash the seller advertised, and only then hands the signer a payment that carries it.
import { BINDINGS } from '@integraledger/lcp';
import { transact, type Signer } from '@integraledger/terms';

export async function pay(challenge: unknown, signer: Signer, keep: (atr: Uint8Array) => Promise<void>) {
  const binding = BINDINGS.find((b) => b.id === 'x402/exact/eip155/eip3009')!;
  const result = await transact(challenge, binding, signer, fetch);
  if ('decline' in result) throw new Error(`${result.decline.code}: ${result.decline.detail}`);
  if ('approve' in result) return result; // an agreement payment for the agent to approve first
  await keep(result.bytes); // the ATR it compared, byte for byte
  return result.signed; // the payment, carrying the ATR hash
}

Check it yourself

For any purchase, take the ATR your agent kept and hash its bytes with SHA-256.
Read the hash the payment carries: on an x402 payment on an EVM chain, the nonce your agent signed, also in the settlement transaction’s AuthorizationUsed log. Source: lcp docs: recovering H from the chain alone⁠ (opens in a new tab)
Equal means that payment was made for that ATR. No call to the seller, or to Integra, is needed.

Three questions, answered

1
Which version of your terms applied to that sale?
Terms pages get edited. A sale that points at a URL points at whatever is there now — not at what was there when the agent agreed.
Which version applied — your terms named by their own hash, assembled per transaction. Not a URL that resolves to whatever is there today; the bytes that were served when the agent agreed. Source: lcp docs: the ATR⁠ (opens in a new tab)
2
Can you show the buyer’s agent was given them?
Not that they exist somewhere on your site. That they travelled with this payment, in the challenge the agent parsed before it signed.
That the agent was given them — the reference travels in the challenge the agent parses before it signs. Source: lcp docs: x402⁠ (opens in a new tab) · Source: lcp docs: rails⁠ (opens in a new tab)
3
Can someone who was not there check any of it?
A counterparty, an auditor, an adjudicator — working from the ATR and the chain, without asking you and without asking us.
That anyone can check — hash the ATR’s bytes, and read the ATR hash back from the payment and the chain, with public software. It never routes through us. Source: lcp docs: recovering H from the chain alone⁠ (opens in a new tab) · Source: LCP §12.2⁠ (opens in a new tab)

You can change your terms page. You cannot change what was agreed.

lcp docs: the ATR⁠ (opens in a new tab) · lcp docs: x402⁠ (opens in a new tab) · lcp docs: rails⁠ (opens in a new tab) · lcp docs: recovering H from the chain alone⁠ (opens in a new tab) · LCP §12.2⁠ (opens in a new tab)

Exhibit The seller’s ATR

The standard

@integraledger/lcp assembles the ATR from your terms (assemble()) and hashes its exact bytes (hash()); the ATR hash is placed in the field each rail or protocol defines — a nonce, a memo, an extension — across its pairings on x402, MPP, the agentic-checkout protocols and card. Source: @integraledger/lcp README⁠ (opens in a new tab) · Source: lcp docs: binding⁠ (opens in a new tab)

On EVM the full 32 bytes of the ATR hash then ride the EIP-3009 nonce the buyer’s agent signs. Source: lcp docs: x402⁠ (opens in a new tab) · Source: lcp docs: rails⁠ (opens in a new tab)

The seller reads the ATR hash back from what the buyer signed before it settles, and from the settlement on the rail after; anyone holding the ATR recomputes it and compares. Each pairing states what it proves and claims no more. Source: lcp docs: seller guide⁠ (opens in a new tab) · Source: @integraledger/lcp: what it guarantees⁠ (opens in a new tab)

At Level 4, /.well-known/legal-context.json can carry disputeResolution — method, jurisdiction, contact, the clause as a content-addressed id, where to fetch it, and a provider’s catalogue — and api, the entry point of a legal-context service. These fields index what your terms say: the clause in your terms document is what governs, and the standard prescribes no dispute process. Source: LCP §3, Level 4⁠ (opens in a new tab) · Source: LCP §2.5⁠ (opens in a new tab)

Different terms for different buyers: each ATR is assembled for one transaction, with its own id and the parties’ content as received, and can be served at a link that expires. Source: lcp docs: the ATR⁠ (opens in a new tab) · Source: LCP §6.1⁠ (opens in a new tab)

The data

Read from the published packages when the site was built; nothing here is typed by hand.

Your challenge, as the buyer’s agent parses it before it signs: the ATR hash and the ATR’s link

{
  "x402Version": 2,
  "resource": {
    "url": "https://api.seller.example/v1/market-data"
  },
  "accepts": [
    {
      "scheme": "exact",
      "network": "eip155:84532",
      "amount": "40000000",
      "asset": "0x036CbD53842c5426634e7929541eC2318f3dCF7e",
      "payTo": "0x209693Bc6afc0C5328bA36FaF03C514EF312287C",
      "maxTimeoutSeconds": 60,
      "extra": {
        "name": "USDC",
        "version": "2"
      }
    }
  ],
  "extensions": {
    "legalContext": {
      "info": {
        "type": "sha256",
        "value": "0x8448dc1b716a5103287cb8f35e36b614ffd91e630ab8b7911833c54748ad5ca6",
        "legalContextUrl": "https://atr.seller.example/k7Qm2V9xT4bN8pR1sW6yZA"
      },
      "schema": {
        "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
        "type": "object",
        "properties": {
          "type": {
            "const": "sha256"
          },
          "value": {
            "type": "string",
            "pattern": "^0x[0-9a-f]{64}$"
          },
          "legalContextUrl": {
            "type": "string",
            "pattern": "^https://"
          }
        },
        "required": [
          "type",
          "value",
          "legalContextUrl"
        ]
      }
    }
  }
}

A Level 4 discovery document, the standard’s own example

level-4-full.json

{
  "terms": "https://example.com/terms/v3.json",
  "termsFormat": "json",
  "atrHash": "0x7f83b1657ff1fc53b92dc18148a1d65dfc2d4b1fa3d677284addd200126d9069",
  "acceptanceRequired": true,
  "disputeResolution": {
    "method": "Dispute Resolution Service Rules",
    "jurisdiction": "New York, USA",
    "contact": "disputes@example.com",
    "clauseId": "sha256:0xc2eb26d28ff4e229ff35917bd53339d82c1b30ec69435572a8872a4d7609c1dd",
    "source": "https://adr.example.org/clauses/dispute-resolution-service-rules",
    "catalog": "https://adr.example.org/.well-known/dispute-services.json"
  },
  "returns": "https://example.com/api/returns",
  "contact": {
    "legal": "legal@example.com",
    "technical": "api-support@example.com"
  },
  "api": "https://api.example.com/legal-context/v1"
}

The code

Compiled against the published packages when the site is built.

Each sale: assemble your terms into the ATR, hash it, and advertise the ATR hash

src/snippets/seller.ts

// The seller, for one sale: write the ATR, hash its exact bytes, and put the ATR hash and the ATR's link in the x402
// challenge it answers the request with.
import { assemble, hash, isRefusal, newAtrId } from '@integraledger/lcp';
import { exactEip3009, requestCommitment, tie, type HttpRequest, type PaymentRequired } from '@integraledger/lcp/x402';

export async function offer(
  challenge: PaymentRequired,
  request: HttpRequest,
  terms: Uint8Array,
  store: (bytes: Uint8Array) => Promise<string>, // your storage: it serves these exact bytes at the link it returns
) {
  const answered = await requestCommitment(request);
  if (isRefusal(answered)) return answered;
  const atr = await assemble(newAtrId(), tie(challenge.accepts, answered), [['terms', terms]]);
  if (isRefusal(atr)) return atr;
  const h = await hash(atr.bytes);
  const link = await store(atr.bytes);
  return exactEip3009.advertise(challenge, h, link, challenge.accepts[0]!);
}

Before you settle: the payment carries the hash of the ATR you issued

src/snippets/seller-check.ts

// The seller, before it settles: the payment the buyer presents carries the ATR hash of the ATR it issued.
import { hashEquals, isRefusal } from '@integraledger/lcp';
import { exactEip3009 } from '@integraledger/lcp/x402';

export async function carriesAtrHash(presented: unknown, issued: string): Promise<boolean> {
  const h = await exactEip3009.bound(presented); // the nonce the payer signed
  return !isRefusal(h) && hashEquals(h, issued);
}

What becomes possible

Let agents transact with sellers nobody vetted
Approval moves from the counterparty to the transaction — and the approved-vendor list stops being the bottleneck.
Run the policy engine you choose
Your agents apply whatever policy engine you choose, with every seller, before any agent’s key is reached. The standard describes one that weighs the level, the jurisdiction, the dispute method and the amounts. Integra’s software records the proof of what was agreed. Source: LCP §4.2⁠ (opens in a new tab) · Source: LCP §4.3⁠ (opens in a new tab) · Source: @integraledger/terms README⁠ (opens in a new tab)
Answer to a third party
Not a log of what your agents did, but the exact ATRs they accepted, each tied to the payment that carried it. Source: @integraledger/terms README⁠ (opens in a new tab)
Delegate authority without surrendering it
Authorization protocols say who may act, and within what limits; the ATR says what was agreed within them. An agent inherits a shape of authority, not a blank cheque. Source: LCP §9⁠ (opens in a new tab)
Escalate instead of guessing
Not every proposal is a yes or a no. The standard describes a buyer policy that hands the interesting ones to a person and lets the rest run; your policy engine decides which. Source: LCP §4.4⁠ (opens in a new tab)

We do not decide whether a bargain is a good one. Your agents decide, with whatever policy engine you choose; we make what they agreed provable.

LCP §4.2⁠ (opens in a new tab) · LCP §4.3⁠ (opens in a new tab) · @integraledger/terms README⁠ (opens in a new tab) · LCP §9⁠ (opens in a new tab) · LCP §4.4⁠ (opens in a new tab)

What becomes possible

Sell to an agent that has never met you
The terms arrive with the challenge and hash back to a document the buyer can fetch — the ATR, not the relationship, carries the trust.
Make the clause that protects you travel
Your liability cap, your warranty disclaimer and your acceptable-use limit only work on a sale that carried them. The payment is priced; the consequence is not.
Offer different terms to different buyers
Assembled per transaction, not per site. One page of static terms for everybody was a limitation of the web, not a law of commerce. Source: lcp docs: the ATR⁠ (opens in a new tab)
Resolve a disagreement from the ATR
Evidence produced at the moment of sale, not reconstructed from inboxes — a lookup rather than an argument.
Open the categories agents are locked out of
Where the agreement is the product. These are not waiting on faster payments. They are waiting on provable terms.
Your path to recourse is declared up front
At the standard’s fourth level, your discovery document points to your dispute process, returns and contacts, and the clause in your terms document is what governs. Source: LCP §3, Level 4⁠ (opens in a new tab) · Source: LCP §2.5⁠ (opens in a new tab)

We do not make transactions trustworthy. We make them provable. What a counterparty does with the proof is theirs.

lcp docs: the ATR⁠ (opens in a new tab) · LCP §3, Level 4⁠ (opens in a new tab) · LCP §2.5⁠ (opens in a new tab)

One transaction, both sides

The payment is priced. The consequence is not.

An agent books two nights at $240. The rate it took was the non-refundable one — $40 cheaper than the flexible rate on the same room. The trip moves by a day.

What they are holding

The traveller

A booking whose change and cancellation terms decided its price, and no record of which rate’s terms were accepted — or whether the flexible option was presented at all.

The hotel

A non-refundable policy that is the entire justification for the lower price, and no way to show the agent was given it before it booked.

The argument is never about whether the policy exists. It is about which one applied.

One ATR answers both: it holds the rate’s terms, and the payment for that booking carries its ATR hash. Source: lcp docs: the ATR⁠ (opens in a new tab)

lcp docs: the ATR⁠ (opens in a new tab)

Exhibit The rate’s terms in the ATR

The standard

The ATR holds the rate’s terms exactly as the hotel served them, its change and cancellation policy included, and the booking’s payment carries the ATR hash. A different rate’s terms give a different hash. Source: lcp docs: the ATR⁠ (opens in a new tab) · Source: LCP §2.5⁠ (opens in a new tab)

On UCP’s booking pairings, the booking response carries the ATR hash and the ATR’s link before the business signs it; with UCP’s AP2 Mandates extension, the buyer’s mandate commits to that signed booking. Source: LCP §C.3⁠ (opens in a new tab) · Source: lcp docs: agentic checkouts⁠ (opens in a new tab)

Check it yourself

Either side hashes the ATR it holds and compares the digest with the ATR hash the booking’s payment names: the rate whose ATR matches is the one that applied.

Ready to see your own agreements proved?

Tell us what you sell, buy or carry, and we will show you where the agreement rides in it.

Integra Binder, hosted by Integra, does the seller’s side of each agreement and is free on test networks, with test-network USDC.

Talk to us

Your agent just bought something. Do you know what you agreed to buy? Can you prove it?

Your agent accepted USDC using x402. Can you prove the terms and conditions for what you sold?

Four purchases

Four sales

Three questions, answered

Three questions, answered

What becomes possible

Let agents transact with sellers nobody vetted

Run the policy engine you choose

Answer to a third party

Delegate authority without surrendering it

Escalate instead of guessing

What becomes possible

Sell to an agent that has never met you

Make the clause that protects you travel

Offer different terms to different buyers

Resolve a disagreement from the ATR

Open the categories agents are locked out of

Your path to recourse is declared up front

The payment is priced. The consequence is not.

Ready to see your own agreements proved?