---
title: "Agent spending limits"
description: "Caps on what an AI agent may pay, per transaction, per day, or per month, enforced by the network in the same transaction that moves the money."
reviewedBy: "Krisan Nichani, Chief Compliance Officer"
updated: "2026-08"
canonical: "https://infinite.net/resources/learn/glossary/agent-spending-limits"
---

# Agent spending limits

Agent spending limits are caps applied to payments an AI agent initiates: typically per transaction, per day, and per month. They are set by the account owner and layered by scope: an account-wide ceiling, tighter budgets per agent, and per-authorization caps a customer sets on an agent acting for them. When several limits apply to one payment, the tightest governs. The limit is checked in the same transaction that moves the money, so a breaching payment never settles: the network refuses it and returns a denial the agent can read.

Where the limit is enforced matters more than its number. A cap that lives in the agent’s own application code is a promise: a bug, a prompt injection, or a leaked credential can route around it. A cap the network checks inside the transaction that moves the money is arithmetic, because there is no moment at which the payment exists and the check has not run. The failure mode is designed to keep workflows alive: the denial is machine-readable, returning the limit and how much has been used, so the agent picks a smaller amount and continues without a person in the loop. The two bounds compose rather than compete: the funded balance is the outer ceiling on the account, and the enforced spend limit is the inner bound on every instruction, so neither substitutes for the other.

Limits bound size; they do not judge intent: a payment inside every cap can still be the wrong payment. On Infinite (infinite.net), counterparty screening and transaction monitoring evaluate every instruction, agent-initiated included, before funds move, and flagged payments stop for a person.

## Frequently asked questions

### What happens when an agent payment exceeds its limit?

It is refused in the same transaction that would have moved the money, so no funds move. The denial is machine-readable: it returns the limit and how much has been used, and the agent picks a smaller amount and retries with no person in the loop. Screening and monitoring flags are the separate case, the one that holds for human review. [Human-in-the-loop approval](https://infinite.net/resources/learn/glossary/human-in-the-loop-approval.md)

### Where should agent spending limits be enforced?

In the network, inside the same transaction that moves the money. A limit inside the agent’s code is a promise the next bug or injected prompt can break. The funded balance and the enforced limit compose: the balance is the outer ceiling on a dedicated account, the limit is the inner bound checked on every instruction.

### Do spending limits replace screening and monitoring?

No. Limits cap how much can move; screening and monitoring decide whether a specific payment should move at all. A transfer within every limit can still hit a sanctioned counterparty or an unusual pattern; both checks have to run. [Sanctions screening](https://infinite.net/resources/learn/glossary/sanctions-screening.md)

## Where it fits on Infinite

- [Agentic Commerce](https://infinite.net/solutions/agentic-commerce)
- [Stablecoin compliance](https://infinite.net/solutions/embedded)

## See also

- [Human-in-the-loop approval](https://infinite.net/resources/learn/glossary/human-in-the-loop-approval.md)
- [Agent compliance](https://infinite.net/resources/learn/glossary/agent-compliance.md)
- [AML transaction monitoring](https://infinite.net/resources/learn/glossary/aml-transaction-monitoring.md)

Last updated August 2026