Pay an API with a stablecoin micropayment
Scaffold for an educational article about payment-required responses, budget checks, proofs, retries, and receipts. This page is not an operational payment integration guide.
Reader takeaway
Metered API payments need budget checks, payment proof, and refund context before examples become publishable.
Draft section: payment proof without production instructions
The article can frame a payment-required response as a state machine: request, quoted cost, budget decision, payment proof, service response, and receipt. Keep the example provider-neutral and avoid live addresses, token preferences, or instructions that could be copied into production.
Before showing any pseudo-flow, the draft should explain that fees, finality, refunds, retries, rate limits, and failed settlement handling need review. The educational value is in the control points, not in implying that stablecoin settlement is always immediate, reversible, or reliable.
Editorial questions
- Payment proof: What minimal receipt fields can be described without exposing sensitive data?
- Failure path: How does the draft explain timeout, underpayment, duplicate payment, or refund states?
- Local boundary: Does every example remain static, fictional, and free of live service calls?
Draft outline
- Payment requirement: describe the request state without naming a preferred provider.
- Budget decision: show how the agent compares price, limits, fees, and retry policy.
- Receipt trail: record proof, response status, and any failed settlement note.
Review gate
Confirm payment-flow wording and local-only example boundaries before publication.
Risk notes required: network fees, failed settlement, payment proof handling.
Source placeholders
Do not remove draft status until payment requirement format, fee treatment, receipt proof, and refund or failure path notes are recorded.
Accessibility notes
Keep the skip link, descriptive navigation labels, logical heading order, and readable checklist cards when examples are added.