Define integration questions
Use queries a developer or product lead would ask before shortlisting an API.
Crypto payment API audit · Updated 2026-09-02
GEO audit for crypto payment APIs
What a crypto payment API GEO audit checks: developer queries, product facts, docs, citation sources, technical accessibility and repeat measurement.
Direct answer
A GEO audit for a crypto payment API checks whether AI search systems can identify the API's job, buyer, supported assets and chains, settlement and custody model, integration path, geographic limits and current product status. It then compares that representation with official docs and the competitors or sources surfaced for high-intent developer questions.
The output should be a dated query baseline, fact-error register, source map and prioritized implementation plan. It should not be a single technical score or a promise that adding schema will produce citations. For molthub, a free scan checks only public website readiness; real platform queries and manual Web3 verification belong to paid human-reviewed scopes.
- Audit unit
- A defined prompt set plus the public pages needed to answer it
- Technical surface
- Homepage, developer docs, API reference, SDKs, GitHub, status and changelog
- Critical facts
- Assets, chains, custody, settlement, webhooks, authentication, limits and availability
- Measurements
- Mention, citation, description accuracy, competitor coverage and source quality
- Free-scan boundary
- Readiness signals only; it does not query paid AI platforms
- Implementation
- Page, docs, metadata and internal-link changes only after fact verification
Key facts
Crypto payment API audit checks
| Surface | Question | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Homepage | Can the product and buyer be classified? | Direct definition and primary use cases |
| API docs | Can a developer understand the flow? | Authentication, endpoints, webhooks and examples |
| Product facts | Can chains, assets and custody be verified? | Maintained support matrix and limitations |
| External sources | Is the product described consistently elsewhere? | GitHub, partner and ecosystem references |
| AI observations | Who appears and why? | Dated answers, citations and competitor pages |
Implementation
A bounded process that can be repeated.
Capture retrieved sources
Record the pages supporting each answer and distinguish official docs from third-party commentary.
Reconcile the docs
Resolve contradictions between marketing copy, API reference, SDKs and status information.
Create extractable evidence
Use direct definitions, support tables, steps, code-linked docs and explicit limitations.
Retest and review conversions
Track citations alongside docs visits, scan starts, contacts and paid order starts.
Evidence and sources
Facts are labelled by evidence type.
Overview of OpenAI crawlersOpenAI · B: Primary external evidencePrimary platform documentation describing OAI-SearchBot and the role of robots controls in ChatGPT search discovery.AI features and your websiteGoogle Search Central · B: Primary external evidencePrimary platform guidance: normal search eligibility and helpful, reliable content remain the foundation for Google's AI search features.GEO: Generative Engine OptimizationarXiv · B: Primary external evidenceResearch paper that introduced a measured framework for improving visibility in generative-engine responses; results should not be treated as a universal platform rule.
Limitations
What this page does not prove.
- A public content audit cannot verify private infrastructure or security controls.
- Schema and crawler access are eligibility inputs, not guaranteed citation triggers.
- API capabilities must be confirmed by the project before publication.
- One AI answer is an observation, not a stable ranking.
Who this is for
- Crypto payment and stablecoin API teams
- Wallet-as-a-service and settlement infrastructure
- Developer products with maintained public documentation
Who this is not for
- Security audits or penetration tests
- Regulatory certification
- Teams unwilling to verify technical claims
Relevant molthub method
Start with a dated baseline, then improve one evidence gap.
Last updated: 2026-09-02