Designing AI guardrails for apps and agents in Marketplace
Why guardrails are essential for AI apps and agents AI apps and agents introduce capabilities that go beyond traditional software. They reason over natural language, interact with data across boundaries, and—in the case of agents—can take autonomous actions using tools and APIs. Without clearly defined guardrails, these capabilities can unintentionally compromise confidentiality, integrity, and availability, the foundational pillars of information security. From a confidentiality perspective, AI systems often process sensitive prompts, contextual data, and outputs that may span customer tenants, subscriptions, or external systems. Guardrails ensure that data access is explicit, scoped, and enforced—rather than inferred through prompts or emergent model behavior. From an availability perspective, AI apps and agents can fail in ways traditional software does not — such as runaway executions, uncontrolled chains of tool calls, or usage spikes that drive up cost and degrade service. Guardrails address this by setting limits on how the system executes, how often it calls tools, and how it behaves when something goes wrong. For Marketplace-ready AI apps and agents, guardrails are foundational design elements that balance innovation with security, reliability, and responsible AI practices. By making behavioral boundaries explicit and enforceable, guardrails enable AI systems to operate safely at scale—meeting enterprise customer expectations and Marketplace requirements from day one. You can always get a curated step-by-step guidance through building, publishing and selling apps for Marketplace through App Advisor. This post is part of a series on building and publishing well-architected AI apps and agents in Microsoft Marketplace. The series focuses on AI apps and agents that are architected, hosted, and operated on Azure, with guidance aligned to building and selling solutions through Microsoft Marketplace. Using Open Worldwide Application Security Project (OWASP) GenAI Top 10 as a guardrail design lens The OWASP GenAI Top 10 provides a practical framework for reasoning about AI‑specific risks that are not fully addressed by traditional application security models. It helps teams identify where assumptions about trust, input handling, autonomy, and data access are most likely to break down in AI‑driven systems. However, not all OWASP risks apply equally to every AI app or agent. Their relevance depends on factors such as: Agent autonomy, including whether the system can take actions without human approval Data access patterns, especially cross‑tenant, cross‑subscription, or external data retrieval Integration surface area, meaning the number and type of tools, APIs, and external systems the agent connects to Because of this variability, OWASP should not be treated as a checklist to implement wholesale. Doing so can lead teams to over‑engineer controls in low‑risk areas while leaving critical gaps in places where autonomy, data movement, or tool execution create real exposure. Instead, OWASP is most effective when used as a design lens — to inform where guardrails are needed and what behaviors require explicit boundaries. Understanding risks and enforcing boundaries are two different things. OWASP tells you where to look; guardrails are what you actually build. The goal is not to eliminate all risk, but to use OWASP insights to design selective, intentional guardrails that align with the system's architecture, autonomy, and operating context. Translating AI risks into architectural guardrails OWASP GenAI Top 10 helps identify where AI systems are vulnerable, but guardrails are what make those risks enforceable in practice. Guardrails are most effective when they are implemented as architectural constraints—designed into the system—rather than as runtime patches added after risky behavior appears. In AI apps and agents, many risks emerge not from a single component, but from how prompts, tools, data, and actions interact. Architectural guardrails establish clear boundaries around these interactions, ensuring that risky behavior is prevented by design rather than detected too late. Common guardrail categories map naturally to the types of risks highlighted in OWASP: Input and prompt constraints Address risks such as prompt injection, system prompt leakage, and unintended instruction override by controlling how inputs are structured, validated, and combined with system context. Action and tool‑use boundaries Mitigate risks related to excessive agency and unintended actions by explicitly defining which tools an AI app or agent can invoke, under what conditions, and with what scope. Data access restrictions Reduce exposure to sensitive information disclosure and cross‑boundary leakage by enforcing identity‑aware, context‑aware access to data sources rather than relying on prompts to imply intent. AI Output validation and moderation Help contain risks such as misinformation, improper output handling, or policy violations by treating AI output as untrusted and subject to validation before it is acted on or returned to users. What matters most is where these guardrails live in the architecture. Effective guardrails sit at trust boundaries—between users and models, models and tools, agents and data sources, and control planes and data planes. When guardrails are embedded at these boundaries, they can be applied consistently across environments, updates, and evolving AI capabilities. By translating identified risks into architectural guardrails, teams move from risk awareness to behavioral enforcement that supports safe AI agent operation. This shift is foundational for building AI apps and agents that can operate safely, predictably, and at scale in Marketplace environments. Design‑time guardrails: shaping allowed behavior before deployment The OWASP GenAI Top 10 provides a practical framework for reasoning about AI specific risks that are not fully addressed by traditional application security models. It helps teams identify where assumptions about trust, input handling, autonomy, and data access are most likely to break down in AI driven systems. However, not all OWASP risks apply equally to every AI app or agent. Their relevance depends on factors such as: Agent autonomy, including whether the system can take actions without human approval Data access patterns, especially cross-tenant, cross subscription, or external data retrieval Integration surface area, meaning the number and type of tools, APIs, and external systems the agent connects to Because of this variability, OWASP should not be treated as a checklist to implement wholesale. Doing so can lead teams to over engineer controls in low risk areas while leaving critical gaps in places where autonomy, data movement, or tool execution create real exposure. Instead, OWASP is most effective when used as a design lens — to inform where guardrails are needed and what behaviors require explicit boundaries. Understanding risks and enforcing boundaries are two different things. OWASP tells you where to look; guardrails are what you actually build. The goal is not to eliminate all risk, but to use OWASP insights to design selective, intentional guardrails that align with the system's architecture, autonomy, and operating context. Runtime guardrails: enforcing boundaries as systems operate For Marketplace publishers, the key distinction between monitoring and runtime guardrails is simple: Monitoring tells you what happened after the fact. Runtime guardrails are inline controls—part of runtime AI safety controls—that can block, pause, throttle, or require approval before an action completes. If you want prevention, the control has to sit in the execution path. At runtime, guardrails should constrain three areas: Agent decision paths (prevent runaway autonomy) Cap planning and execution. Limit the agent to a maximum number of steps per request, enforce a maximum wall‑clock time, and stop repeated loops. Apply circuit breakers. Terminate execution after a specified number of tool failures or when downstream services return repeated throttling errors, reinforcing autonomous agent limits. Require explicit escalation. When the agent’s plan shifts from “read” to “write,” pause and require approval before continuing. Tool invocation patterns (control what gets called, how, and with what inputs) Enforce allowlists. Allow only approved tools and operations, and block any attempt to call unregistered endpoints. Validate parameters. Reject tool calls that include unexpected tenant identifiers, subscription scopes, or resource paths. Throttle and quota. Rate‑limit tool calls per tenant and per user, and cap token/tool usage to prevent cost spikes and degraded service. Cross‑system actions (constrain outbound impact at the boundary you control) Runtime guardrails cannot “reach into” external systems and stop independent agents operating elsewhere. What publishers can do is enforce policy at your solution’s outbound boundary: the tool adapter, connector, API gateway, or orchestration layer that your app or agent controls. Concrete examples include: Block high‑risk operations by default (delete, approve, transfer, send) unless a human approves. Restrict write operations to specific resources (only this resource group, only this SharePoint site, only these CRM entities). Require idempotency keys and safe retries so repeated calls do not duplicate side effects. Log every attempted cross‑system write with identity, scope, and outcome, and fail closed when policy checks cannot run. Done well, runtime guardrails produce evidence, not just intent. They show reviewers that your AI app or agent enforces least privilege, prevents runaway execution, and limits blast radius—even when the model output is unpredictable. Guardrails across data, identity, and autonomy boundaries Guardrails don't work in silos. They are only effective when they align across the three core boundaries that shape how an AI app or agent operates — identity, data, and autonomy. Guardrails must align across: Identity boundaries (who the agent acts for) — represent the credentials the agent uses, the roles it assumes, and the permissions that flow from those identities. Without clear identity boundaries, agent actions can appear legitimate while quietly exceeding the authority that was actually intended. Data boundaries (what the agent can see or retrieve) — ensuring access is governed by explicit authorization and context, not by what the model infers or assumes. A poorly scoped data boundary doesn't just create exposure — it creates exposure that is hard to detect until something goes wrong. Autonomy boundaries (what the agent can decide or execute) — defining which actions require human approval, which can proceed automatically, and which are never permitted regardless of context. Autonomy without defined limits is one of the fastest ways for behavior to drift beyond what was ever intended. When these boundaries are misaligned, the consequences are subtle but serious. An agent may act under the authority of one identity, access data scoped to another, and execute with broader autonomy than was ever granted — not because a single control failed, but because the boundaries were never reconciled with each other. This is how unintended privilege escalation happens in well-intentioned systems. Balancing safety, usefulness, and customer trust Getting guardrails right is less about adding controls and more about placing them well. Too restrictive, and legitimate workflows break down, safe autonomy shrinks, and the system becomes more burden than benefit. Too permissive, and the risks accumulate quietly — surfacing later as incidents, audit findings, or eroded customer trust. Effective guardrails share three characteristics that help strike that balance: Transparent — customers and operators understand what the system can and cannot do, and why those limits exist Context-aware — boundaries tighten or relax based on identity, environment, and risk, without blocking safe use Adjustable — guardrails evolve as models and integrations change, without compromising the protections that matter most When these characteristics are present, guardrails naturally reinforce the foundational principles of information security — protecting confidentiality through scoped data access, preserving integrity by constraining actions to authorized paths, and supporting availability by preventing runaway execution and cascading failures. How guardrails support Marketplace readiness For AI apps and agents in Microsoft Marketplace, guardrails are a practical enabler — not just of security, but of the entire Marketplace journey. They make complex AI systems easier to evaluate, certify, and operate at scale. Guardrails simplify three critical aspects of that journey: Security and compliance review — explicit, architectural guardrails give reviewers something concrete to assess. Rather than relying on documentation or promises, behavior is observable and boundaries are enforceable from day one. Customer onboarding and trust — when customers can see what an AI system can and cannot do, and how those limits are enforced, adoption decisions become easier and time to value shortens. Clarity is a competitive advantage. Long-term operation and scale — as AI apps evolve and integrate with more systems, guardrails keep the blast radius contained and prevent hidden privilege escalation paths from forming. They are what makes growth manageable. Marketplace-ready AI systems don't describe their guardrails — they demonstrate them. That shift, from assurance to evidence, is what accelerates approvals, builds lasting customer trust, and positions an AI app or agent to scale with confidence. What’s next in the journey Guardrails establish the foundation for safe, predictable AI behavior — but they are only the beginning. The next phase extends these boundaries into governance, compliance, and day‑to‑day operations through policy definition, auditing, and lifecycle controls. Together, these mechanisms ensure that guardrails remain effective as AI apps and agents evolve, scale, and operate within enterprise environments. See the next post in the series: Governing AI apps and agents for Marketplace | Microsoft Community Hub. Key resources See curated, step-by-step guidance to help you build, publish, or sell your app or agent (no matter where you start) in App Advisor, Quick-Start Development Toolkit can connect you with code templates for AI solution patterns Microsoft AI Envisioning Day Events How to build and publish AI apps and agents for Microsoft Marketplace Get over $126K USD in benefits and technical consultations to help you replicate and publish your app with ISV SuccessSecuring AI agents at scale: Identity, governance, and zero trust
AI agents are reshaping enterprise operations. They reason over data, call APIs, trigger workflows, and act on behalf of users — often without human intervention. IDC projects 1.3 billion AI agents in production by 2028, and Capgemini research shows four out of five organizations plan to integrate agents within the next three years. The race to build is already underway. The harder question — one most organizations are not yet equipped to answer — is: how do you operate AI agents safely at scale? Deploying a demo-ready agent is table stakes. Making that same agent production-grade, with proper identity, access controls, governance, and runtime protections, is an entirely different engineering and operational challenge. Why agentic AI changes the security equation Traditional software executes deterministic logic. An AI agent reasons, plans, and takes action — dynamically, across systems it was never explicitly programmed to touch. When connected to enterprise APIs and data, an agent stops being a chatbot and starts functioning as a digital worker. That shift has direct security implications: Agents can trigger business processes and access sensitive data autonomously Their capabilities expand as new tools and Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers are connected They behave non-deterministically, making static policy controls insufficient A compromised or misconfigured agent can have a large blast radius Most organizations are deploying into this environment without the governance infrastructure to match. The result is growing agent sprawl, unclear accountability, and unmanaged risk — exactly the conditions that security and compliance teams lose sleep over. A three-pillar framework for secure agent operations Securing AI agents at enterprise scale requires a structured approach. The following three-pillar framework provides a practical foundation: Manage, Govern, and Protect. Pillar 1: Manage — build an agent registry and enforce identity The first pillar focuses on visibility. You cannot secure what you cannot see, and you cannot control what you cannot identify. Every agent in your environment must have a unique, managed identity — a first-class identity type distinct from human accounts, service principals, and workload identities. Without it, agents are anonymous automation: untraceable, un-auditable, and uncontrollable. With agent identity in place, organizations gain: Traceability — a full record of what each agent accessed, when, and in what context Auditability — the clean audit trail that security and compliance teams require Granular control — the ability to restrict, block, or revoke access based on policy The operational target is an agent registry: a centralized fleet view of every agent across the organization, including those built on non-Microsoft platforms. Operators should be able to inspect agent metadata, validate ownership, review configuration, and block agents directly from this registry. This fleet management capability is what separates enterprise-grade deployments from uncontrolled agent sprawl. Pillar 2: Govern — automate agent lifecycle management The second pillar addresses the operational reality that emerges once agents number in the hundreds or thousands: manual governance doesn't scale. Three foundational practices make lifecycle governance work at scale. Assign a sponsor to every agent Each agent must have a designated owner — a person or team accountable for its activity and access decisions from creation through retirement. Orphaned agents, where no human is accountable, represent a high-risk surface area. Sponsorship creates a clear chain of accountability that also supports incident response when something goes wrong. Automate lifecycle policies Agents change hands, move between teams, and eventually retire. Access granted at creation may be inappropriate six months later. Lifecycle policies — covering creation, handoff, access review, and decommissioning — must be automated to remain effective at scale. The goal is to remove routine human intervention from the process while ensuring every action is logged and auditable. Enforce just-in-time, time-bound access Agents should never hold standing permissions. Access should be intentionally scoped, time-limited, and removed when no longer required. This directly addresses permission accumulation — one of the most common and underappreciated risks in agentic deployments, where an agent gradually gains access to resources far beyond its original purpose. The full lifecycle flow runs from creation (sponsor assigned, access requested and approved) through active operation (periodic access reviews) to retirement (identity deleted, access expired). Every stage should generate an auditable record. Pillar 3: Protect — secure agents at runtime The third pillar covers production runtime security — what happens once agents are live and actively accessing corporate resources. This is where risk is most dynamic and where a defense-in-depth approach is non-negotiable. Agents require access to file stores, APIs, calendars, MCP servers, and third-party SaaS systems to deliver value. Each of those connections is also an exposure point for prompt injection, data exfiltration, or access to malicious content. Three mechanisms form the runtime protection stack. Conditional access policies for agents The same conditional access framework used for human identities can be applied to agents — enforcing policy based on agent identity and operating context. This enables broad baseline protections across the entire agent fleet, with stricter controls for high-impact agents or sensitive scenarios. Access decisions happen continuously and automatically, not as one-off reviews. Risk signal detection and automated response Risky agent behaviors — sudden access spikes, repeated resource access failures, or attempts to reach unfamiliar systems — generate signals that can trigger automated responses. Policies can block the agent, limit its blast radius, and alert security operations for investigation, all without manual intervention. Network-layer controls Identity and access controls alone are not sufficient. Content inspection, threat-intelligence-based URL filtering, and file-level network filtering add additional layers of protection, particularly against agents that interact with external systems or user-supplied inputs. No single control point should be relied upon exclusively. Understanding agent blueprints and identity hierarchy One of the most important architectural concepts for enterprise agent governance is the distinction between an agent blueprint and an agent identity. An agent blueprint is a reusable, tenant-scoped template that defines the security, authentication, and governance characteristics for a class of agents. It sets the operational boundary: what the agent is allowed to do, which resources it can access, and which policies govern its behavior. An agent identity is a specific instance derived from a blueprint. One blueprint can generate many identities, each inheriting the governance constraints defined in the template. This parent-child model delivers concrete benefits across roles: Developers get a predictable, consistent identity model for every agent they build IT and security teams gain class-level audit trails and lifecycle control without per-instance overhead End users and customers can trust that every agent instance operates within the boundaries set at design time Governance intent — authentication, authorization, execution boundaries — is defined once and applied consistently across the entire agent family derived from that blueprint. MCP tool governance: Managing agent interoperability Modern agents rarely operate in isolation. They connect to external tools and services through protocols like MCP (Model Context Protocol), enabling tasks like retrieving documents from SharePoint, sending email, scheduling meetings, and coordinating with other agents. The power of this connectivity is real. A single agent instruction can simultaneously invoke multiple MCP servers — retrieving a file, generating a shareable link, sending it via email, and creating a calendar event — all in one natural-language-triggered flow. That same power is also a governance surface. Not every available MCP tool is appropriate for every agent, and not every tool is safe for production use without review. The right approach is to treat tool access like data access: intentional, reviewed, and tied to the agent's identity. Access to specific MCP servers should be formally requested, approved by IT or security, and documented as part of the agent onboarding process — not left to developer discretion at build time. Five practices for production-ready agent security The framework above translates into concrete practices for teams building and operating agents today. Build identity in, not on. Retrofitting governance onto an existing agent fleet is significantly harder than starting with identity baked into the build process. Every new agent should have an identity, a sponsor, and a defined access scope before it ships. Design for the fleet, not the agent. The practices and templates you establish for one agent should scale to hundreds. Reusable blueprints, automated lifecycle policies, and standardized onboarding patterns are investments that compound as agent counts grow. Threat-model before you deploy. For each production agent, work through what data it can access, what actions it can take, what happens under a malicious prompt, and what the blast radius looks like if it is compromised. Threat modeling surfaces risks that capability-focused development naturally misses. Automate governance alongside capability. The instinct in AI development is to automate what the agent does. Apply that same instinct to how the agent is governed. Lifecycle policies, access reviews, risk signal responses, and audit log generation should all run without manual orchestration. Apply zero trust to agents explicitly. Least privilege, continuous verification, and assume-breach principles apply to agents just as they do to humans and workloads. Agents that accumulate permissions over time, or that operate without continuous policy enforcement, are a liability as the threat landscape evolves. Distributing governed agents through Microsoft Marketplace The governance architecture described in this post — Entra agent identity, blueprints, lifecycle policies, and zero trust controls — applies equally to software development companies distributing agents through Microsoft Marketplace. These constructs are what determine whether a third-party agent can be trusted and managed by the enterprise customers who purchase it. With Agent 365 now generally available, enterprise customers have a control plane for managing every agent in their Microsoft 365 tenant, including agents procured from Marketplace. A software company-built agent that arrives without a registered Entra agent identity will surface as unmanaged in the customer's registry, requiring manual remediation before it can be approved for use — a friction point that directly delays adoption. For software company agents to pass enterprise IT and security review in an Agent 365-enabled tenant, three things must be in place from day one: Registered Entra agent identity — enables the customer to apply their own conditional access and lifecycle policies to the agent A well-defined agent blueprint — tells the customer's IT and security teams what the agent is permitted to do, what resources it accesses, and what governance characteristics it carries Declared and scoped MCP tool access — allows the customer's admin to review and approve tool permissions before the agent goes live A software company agent that ships with these elements in place signals it was built for enterprise operations from the start — and that trust signal is increasingly what separates agents that clear procurement review from those that stall in it. The competitive case for getting this right Organizations that build secure, governed agent infrastructure do not just reduce risk — they accelerate adoption. When security and operations teams can trust the agents in their environment, the internal friction that slows deployment decreases. Partners and software companies that deliver governed, auditable agent solutions create durable differentiation compared to those shipping ungoverned agents into customer environments. The companies winning in the agentic AI space are not just building agents. They are building the platform, practices, and governance infrastructure around them. That is what enterprise customers are increasingly requiring, and it is what separates a compelling demo from a production-grade solution. The principles have not changed — identity, least privilege, auditability, and defense in depth. What has changed is that those principles now apply to a new class of actor in the enterprise: the AI agent. *This blog is based on the Security for SDC Series Season 2 Episode 4: Securing and Governing AI Agents Before They Go Live presented by Ryan Nguyen and Paul Woo View past and upcoming sessions in the Security for software development company series: Security for SDC Series: Securing the Agentic EraProduction ready architectures for AI apps and agents on Marketplace
Why “production‑ready” architecture matters for Marketplace AI apps and agents A working AI prototype is not the same as a production‑ready AI app in Microsoft Marketplace. Marketplace solutions are expected to operate reliably in real customer environments, alongside mission‑critical workloads and under enterprise constraints. As a result, AI apps published through Marketplace must meet a higher bar than “it works in a demo.” You can always get a curated step-by-step guidance through building, publishing and selling apps for Marketplace through App Advisor. Production‑ready Marketplace AI apps must assume: Alignment with enterprise expectations and Azure well‑architected AI principles, including cost optimization, security, reliability, operational excellence, and performance efficiency Architectural decisions made early are difficult to reverse, especially once customers, tenants, and billing relationships are in place A higher trust bar from customers, who expect Marketplace solutions to be Microsoft‑vetted, certified, and safe to run in production Customers come to Marketplace expecting solutions that are ready to run, ready to scale, and ready to be supported—not experiments. This post focuses on the architectural principles and patterns required to meet those expectations. Specific services and implementation details are covered later in the series. This post is part of a series on building and publishing well-architected AI apps and agents in Microsoft Marketplace. The series focuses on AI apps and agents that are architected, hosted, and operated on Azure, with guidance aligned to building and selling solutions through Microsoft Marketplace. Aligning offer type and architecture early sets you up for success A strong indicator of a smooth Marketplace journey is early alignment between offer type and solution architecture. Offer type defines more than how an AI app is listed—it establishes clear roles and responsibilities between publishers and customers, which in turn shape architectural boundaries. Across all other offer types, architecture must clearly answer three questions: Who owns the runtime? Where does the AI execute? Who controls updates and ongoing operations? These decisions will vary depending on whether the solution resides in the customer’s or publisher’s tenant based on the attributes associated with the following transactable marketplace offer types: SaaS offers, where the AI runtime lives in the publisher’s environment and architecture must support multitenant AI app design, strong isolation, and centralized operations Container offers, where workloads run in the customer’s Kubernetes environment and architecture emphasizes portability and clear operational assumptions Virtual Machine offers, where preconfigured environments run in the customer’s subscription and architecture is more tightly coupled to the OS and infrastructure footprint Azure Managed Applications, where the solution is deployed into the customer's subscription and architecture must balance customer control with defined lifecycle boundaries. What makes this model distinctive is its flexibility: an Azure Managed Application can package containers, virtual machines, or a combination of both — making it a natural fit for solutions that require customer-controlled infrastructure without sacrificing publisher-managed operations. The packaging choice shapes the underlying architecture, but the managed application wrapper is what defines how the solution is deployed, updated, and governed within the customer's environment. Architecture decisions naturally reinforce Marketplace requirements and reduce certification and operational friction later. Key factors that benefit from early alignment include: Roles and responsibilities, such as who operates the AI runtime and who is responsible for uptime, patching, scaling, and ongoing operations Proximity to data, particularly for AI solutions that rely on customer‑specific or proprietary data, where placement affects performance, data movement, and compliance Core architectural building blocks of AI apps Designing a production‑ready AI app starts with treating the solution as a system, not a single service. AI apps—especially agent‑based solutions—are composed of multiple cooperating layers that together enable reasoning, action, and safe operation at scale. At a high level, most production‑ready AI apps include the following building blocks: Interaction layer, which serves as the entry point for users or systems and is responsible for authentication, request shaping, and consistent responses Orchestration layer, which coordinates reasoning, tool selection, workflow execution, and retrieval‑augmented generation (RAG) flows across multi‑step interactions Model endpoints, which provide inference and generation capabilities and introduce distinct latency, cost, and dependency characteristics Data sources, including vector stores, operational data, documents, and logs that the AI system reasons over Control planes, such as identity, configuration, policy enforcement, feature flags, and secrets management, which govern behavior without redeploying core logic Observability, which enables tracing, monitoring, and diagnosis of agent decisions, actions, and outcomes Networking, which connects components using a zero‑trust posture where every call is authenticated and outbound access is explicitly controlled Together, these components form the foundation of most Marketplace‑ready AI architectures. How they are composed—and where boundaries are drawn—varies by offer type, tenancy model, and customer requirements. Specific services, patterns, and implementation guidance for each layer are explored later in the series. Tenancy design choices as an early architectural decision One of the earliest and most consequential architectural decisions is where the AI solution is hosted. Does it run in the publisher’s tenant, or is it deployed into the customer’s tenant? This choice establishes foundational boundaries and is difficult to change later without significant redesign. If the solution runs in the publisher’s tenant, it is inherently multi‑tenant and must be designed with strong logical isolation across customers. If it runs in the customer’s tenant, deployments are typically single‑tenant by default, with isolation provided through infrastructure boundaries. Many Marketplace AI apps fall between these extremes, making it essential to define the AI tenancy model early. Common tenancy approaches include: Publisher‑hosted, multi‑tenant solutions, where a shared AI runtime serves multiple customers and requires strict isolation of customer data, inference requests, identity, and cost attribution Customer‑hosted, single‑tenant deployments, where each customer operates an isolated instance within their own Azure subscription, often preferred for regulated or tightly controlled environments Hybrid models, which combine centralized AI services with customer‑hosted data or execution layers and require carefully defined trust and access boundaries Tenancy decisions influence several core architectural dimensions, including: Identity and access boundaries, which define how users and agents authenticate and act across tenants Data isolation, including how customer data is stored, processed, and protected Model usage patterns, such as shared models versus tenant‑specific models Cost allocation and scale, including how usage is tracked and attributed per customer These considerations are not implementation details—they shape how the AI system behaves, scales, and is governed in production. Reference architecture guidance for multi‑tenant AI and machine learning solutions in the Azure Architecture Center explores these tradeoffs in more detail. Understanding your customer’s needs Designing a production‑ready AI architecture starts with understanding the environment your customers expect your solution to operate in. Marketplace customers vary widely in their security posture, compliance obligations, operational practices, and tolerance for change. Architectures that reflect those realities reduce friction during onboarding, certification, and long‑term operation. Key customer considerations that shape architecture include: Security and compliance expectations, such as industry regulations, internal governance policies, or regional data requirements Target environments, including whether customers expect solutions to run in their own Azure subscription or are comfortable consuming centrally hosted services Change and outage windows, where operational constraints or seasonal restrictions require predictable and controlled updates Architectural alignment with customer needs is not about designing for every edge case. It is about making intentional tradeoffs that reflect how customers will deploy, operate, and depend on your AI solution in production. Specific security controls, compliance enforcement mechanisms, and operational policies are explored later in the series. This section establishes the architectural mindset required to support them. Separating environments for safe iteration Production AI systems must evolve continuously while remaining stable for customers. Separating environments is how publishers enable safe iteration without destabilizing live usage—and how customers maintain confidence when adopting and operating AI solutions in their own environments. From the publisher’s perspective, environment separation enables: Iteration on prompts, models, and orchestration logic without impacting production customers Validation of behavior changes before rollout, especially for AI‑driven systems where small changes can produce materially different outcomes Controlled release strategies that reduce operational risk From the customer’s perspective, environment separation shapes how the solution fits into their own development and operational practices: Where the solution is deployed across development, staging, and production environments How deployments are repeated or promoted, particularly when the solution runs in the customer’s tenant Whether environments can be recreated predictably, or whether customers are forced to manually reconfigure deployments with each iteration When AI solutions are deployed into the customer’s tenant, environment design becomes especially important. Customers should not be required to reverse‑engineer deployment logic, recreate environments from scratch, or re‑establish trust boundaries every time the solution evolves. These concerns should be addressed architecturally, not deferred to operational workarounds. Environment separation is therefore not just a DevOps choice—it is an architectural decision. It influences identity boundaries, deployment topology, validation strategies, and the shared operational contract between publisher and customer. Designing for AI‑specific scalability patterns AI workloads do not scale like traditional web or CRUD‑based applications. While front‑end and API layers may follow familiar scaling patterns, AI systems introduce behaviors that require different architectural assumptions. Production‑ready AI architectures must account for: Bursty inference demand, where usage can spike unpredictably based on user behavior or downstream automation Long‑running or multi‑step agent workflows, which may span tools, data sources, and time Model‑driven latency and cost characteristics, which influence throughput and responsiveness independently of application logic As a result, scalability decisions often vary by layer. Horizontal scaling is typically most effective in interaction, orchestration, and retrieval components, while model endpoints may require separate capacity planning, isolation, or throttling strategies. Treating identity as an architectural boundary Identity is foundational to Marketplace AI apps, but architecture must plan for it explicitly. Identity decisions define trust boundaries across users, agents, and services, and shape how the solution scales, secures access, and meets compliance requirements. Key architectural considerations include: Microsoft Entra ID as a foundation, where identity is treated as a core control plane rather than a late‑stage integration How users sign in, including: Their own corporate Microsoft Entra ID tenant B2B scenarios where one Entra ID tenant trusts another B2C identity providers for customer‑facing experiences How tenants authenticate, particularly in multi‑tenant or cross‑organization scenarios How AI agents act on behalf of users, including delegated access, authorization scope, and auditability How services communicate securely, using a zero‑trust posture where every call is authenticated and authorized Treating identity as an architectural boundary helps ensure that trust relationships remain explicit, enforceable, and consistent across tenants and environments. This foundation is critical for supporting secure operation, compliance enforcement, and future tenant‑linking scenarios. Designing for observability and auditability Production‑ready AI apps must be observable and auditable by design. Marketplace customers expect visibility into how systems behave in production, and publishers need clear insight to diagnose issues, operate reliably, and meet enterprise trust and compliance expectations. Key architectural considerations include: End‑to‑end observability, covering user interactions, agent reasoning steps, tool invocations, and downstream service calls Clear audit trails, capturing who initiated an action, what the AI system did, and how decisions were executed—especially when agents act on behalf of users Tenant‑aware visibility, ensuring logs, metrics, and traces are correctly attributed without exposing data across tenants Operational transparency, enabling effective troubleshooting, incident response, and continuous improvement without ad‑hoc instrumentation AI app observability design goes beyond infrastructure health. It must also account for AI‑specific behavior, such as prompt execution, model selection, retrieval outcomes, and tool usage. Without this visibility, diagnosing failures, validating changes, or explaining outcomes becomes difficult in real customer environments. Auditability is equally critical. Identity, access, and action histories must be traceable to support security reviews, regulatory obligations, and customer trust—particularly in regulated or enterprise settings. Common architectural pitfalls in Marketplace AI apps Even experienced teams run into similar challenges when moving from an AI prototype to a production‑ready Marketplace solution. The following pitfalls often surface when architectural decisions are deferred or made implicitly. Common pitfalls include: Treating AI as a single service instead of a system, where model inference is implemented without considering orchestration, data access, identity, observability, and operational boundaries Hard‑coding tenant assumptions, such as assuming a single tenant, identity model, or deployment topology, which becomes difficult to unwind as customer requirements diversify Not planning for a resilient model strategy, leaving the architecture fragile when model versions change, capabilities evolve, or providers introduce breaking behavior Assuming data lives within the same boundary as the solution, when in practice it may reside in a different tenant, subscription, or control plane Tightly coupling prompt logic to application code, making it harder to iterate on AI behavior, validate changes, or manage risk without full redeployments Assuming issues can be fixed after go‑live, which underestimates the cost and complexity of changing architecture once customers, subscriptions, and trust relationships are in place While these pitfalls may be caused by a lack of technical skill on the customer’s side, they could typically emerge when architectural decisions are postponed in favor of speed, or when AI behavior is treated as an isolated concern rather than part of a production system. What’s next in the journey The architectural decisions made early—around offer type, tenancy, identity, environments, and observability—establish the foundation on which everything else is built. When these choices are intentional, they reduce friction as the solution evolves, scales, and adapts to real customer needs. The next set of posts builds on this foundation, exploring different dimensions of operating, securing, and evolving Marketplace AI apps in production. See the next post in the series: Securing AI apps and agents on Microsoft Marketplace | Microsoft Community Hub. Key resources See curated, step-by-step guidance to help you build, publish, or sell your app or agent (no matter where you start) in App Advisor Quick-Start Development Toolkit can connect you with code templates for AI solution patterns Microsoft AI Envisioning Day Events How to build and publish AI apps and agents for Microsoft Marketplace Get over $126K USD in benefits and technical consultations to help you replicate and publish your app with ISV SuccessAI apps and agents: choosing your Marketplace offer type
Choosing your Marketplace offer type is one of the earliest—and most consequential—decisions you’ll make when preparing an AI app for Microsoft Marketplace. It’s also one of the hardest to change later. This post is the second in our Marketplace‑ready AI app series. Its goal is not to push you toward a specific option, but to help you understand how Marketplace offer types map to different AI delivery models—so you can make an informed decision before architecture, security, and publishing work begins. You can always get a curated step-by-step guidance through building, publishing and selling apps for Marketplace through App Advisor. This post is part of a series on building and publishing well-architected AI apps and agents in Microsoft Marketplace. The series focuses on AI apps and agents that are architected, hosted, and operated on Azure, with guidance aligned to building and selling solutions through Microsoft Marketplace. Why offer type is an important Marketplace decision Offer type is more than a packaging choice. It defines the operating model of your AI app on Marketplace: How customers acquire your solution Where the AI runtime executes Determining the right security and business boundaries for the AI solution and associated contextual data Who operates and updates the system How transactions and billing are handled Once an offer type is selected, it cannot be changed without creating a new offer. Teams that choose too quickly often discover later that the decision creates friction across architecture, security boundaries, or publishing requirements. Microsoft’s Publishing guide by offer type explains the structural differences between offer types and why this decision must be made up front. How Marketplace offer types map to AI delivery models AI apps differ from traditional software in a few critical ways: Contextual data may need to remain in a specific tenant or geography Agents may operate autonomously and continuously Control over infrastructure often determines trust and compliance How the solution is charged and monetized, including whether pricing is usage‑based, metered, or subscription‑driven (for example, billing per inference, per workflow execution, or as a flat monthly fee) The buyer’s technical capability, including the level of engineering expertise required to deploy and operate the solution (for example, SaaS is generally easier to consume, while container‑based and managed application offers often require stronger cloud engineering and DevOps skills) Marketplace offer types don’t describe features. They define responsibility boundaries—who controls the AI runtime, who owns the infrastructure, and where customer data is processed. At a high level, Marketplace supports four primary delivery models for AI solutions: SaaS Azure Managed Application Azure Container Virtual Machine Each represents a different balance between publisher control and customer control. The sections below explain what each model means in practice. Check out the interactive offer selection wizard in App Advisor for decision support. Below, we unpack each of the offer types. SaaS offers for AI apps SaaS is the most common model for AI apps and agents on Marketplace—and often the default starting point. With a SaaS offer, the AI service runs in the publisher’s Azure environment and is accessed by customers through a centralized endpoint. This model works well for: Multi‑tenant AI platforms and agents Continuous model and prompt updates Rapid experimentation and iteration Usage‑based or subscription billing Because the service is centrally hosted, publishers retain full control over deployment, updates, and operational behavior. For multi-tenant AI apps, this also means making early decisions about Microsoft Entra ID configuration—such as how customers are onboarded, whether access is granted through tenant-level consent or external identities, and how user identities, roles, and data are isolated across tenants to prevent cross-tenant access or data leakage. For official guidance, see the SaaS section of the Marketplace publishing guide and the AI agent overview, which describes SaaS‑based agent deployments. Plan a SaaS offer for Microsoft Marketplace. Azure Managed Applications for AI solutions In this model, the solution is deployed into the customer’s Azure subscription, not the publisher’s. There are two variants: Managed applications, where the publisher retains permissions to operate and update the deployed resources Solution templates, where the customer fully manages the deployment after installation This model is a strong fit when AI workloads must run inside customer‑controlled environments, such as: Regulated or sensitive data scenarios Customer‑owned networking and identity boundaries Infrastructure‑heavy AI solutions that can’t be centralized Willingness or need on part of the customer or IT team to tailor the app to the needs of the end customer specific environment Managed Applications sit between SaaS and fully customer‑run deployments. They offer more customer control than SaaS, while still allowing publishers to manage lifecycle aspects when appropriate. Marketplace guidance for Azure Applications is covered in the publishing guide. For more information, see the following links: Plan an Azure managed application for an Azure application offer. Azure Container offers for AI workloads Container offer AI workloads—typically on AKS—using container images supplied by the publisher. This model is best suited for scenarios that require: Strict data residency Air‑gapped or tightly controlled environments Customer‑managed Kubernetes infrastructure The publisher delivers the container artifacts, but deployment, scaling, and runtime operations occur in the customer’s environment. This shifts operational responsibility, risk and compute costs away from the publisher and toward the customer. Container offer requirements are covered in the Marketplace publishing guide. Plan a Microsoft Marketplace Container offer. Virtual Machine offers for AI solutions Virtual Machine offers still play a role, particularly for specialized or legacy AI solutions. VM offers package a pre‑configured AI environment that customers deploy into their Azure subscription. Compared to other models, they offer: Updates and scaling are more tightly scoped Iteration cycles tend to be longer The solution is more closely aligned with specific OS or hardware requirements They are most commonly used for: Legacy AI stacks Fixed‑function AI appliances Solutions with specialized hardware or driver dependencies VM publishing requirements are also documented in the Marketplace publishing guide. Plan a virtual machine offer for Microsoft Marketplace. Comparing offer types across AI‑specific decision dimensions Rather than asking “which offer type is best,” it’s more useful to ask what trade‑offs you’re making in an AI app delivery model comparison. Key lenses to consider include: Who operates the AI runtime day‑to‑day Where customer data and AI prompts inputs and outputs are processed and stored Example: When evaluating Saas vs managed apps for AI, check industry specific compliance requirements to evaluate whether the data has to remain in the customer’s tenant or it can be sent to the publisher’s tenant. How quickly models, prompts, and logic can evolve The balance between publisher control and customer control How Marketplace transactions and billing align with runtime behavior SaaS Container (AKS / ACI) Virtual Machine (VM) Azure Managed Application What it is Fully managed, externally hosted app integrated with Marketplace for billing and entitlement Containerized app deployed into customer-managed Azure container environments VM image deployed directly into the customer’s Azure subscription Azure native solution deployed into the customer’s subscription, managed by the publisher Control plane Publisher‑owned Customer owned Customer owned Customer owned (with publisher access) Operational model Centralized operations, updates, and scaling Customer operates infra; publisher provides containers Customer operates infra; publisher provides VM image Per customer deployment and lifecycle Good fit scenarios • Multi‑tenant AI apps serving many customers • Fast onboarding and trials • Frequent model or feature updates • Publisher has full runtime control • AI apps or agents built as microservices • Legacy or lift-and-shift AI workloads • Enterprise AI solutions requiring customer owned infrastructure Avoid when • Customers require deployment into their own subscription • Strict data residency mandates customer control • Offline or air‑gapped environments are required • Customers standardize on Kubernetes • Custom OS or driver dependencies • Tight integration with customer Azure resources Typical AI usage pattern Centralized inference and orchestration across tenants • Portability across environments is important • Specialized runtime requirements • Strong compliance and governance needs Different AI solutions land in different places across these dimensions. The right choice is the one that matches your operational reality—not just your product vision. Note: If your solution primarily delivers virtual machines or containerized workloads, use a Virtual Machine or Container offer instead of an Azure Managed Application. Supported sales models and pricing options by Marketplace offer type Marketplace offer types don’t just define how an AI app and agent is deployed — they also determine how it can be sold, transacted, and expanded through Microsoft Marketplace. Understanding the supported sales models early helps avoid misalignment between architecture, pricing, and go‑to‑market strategy. Supported sales models Offer type Transactable listing Public listing Private offers Resale enabled Multiparty private offers Azure IP Co‑sell eligible SaaS Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Container Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Virtual Machine Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Azure Managed Application Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes What these sales models mean Transactable listing A Marketplace listing that allows customers to purchase the solution directly through Microsoft Marketplace, with billing handled through Microsoft. Public listing A listing that is discoverable by any customer browsing Microsoft Marketplace and available for self‑service acquisition. Private offers Customer‑specific offers created by the publisher with negotiated pricing, terms, or configurations, purchased through Marketplace. Resale enabled Using resale enabled offers, software companies can authorize their channel partners to sell their existing Marketplace offers on their behalf. After authorization, channel partners can independently create and sell private offers without direct involvement from the software company. Multiparty private offers Private offers that involve one or more Microsoft partners (such as resellers or system integrators) as part of the transaction. Azure IP Co‑sell eligible When all requirements are met this allows your offers to contribute toward customers' Microsoft Azure Consumption Commitments (MACC). Pricing section Marketplace offer types determine the AI pricing models available. Make sure you build towards a marketplace offer type that aligns with how you want to deploy and price your solution. SaaS – Subscription or flat‑rate pricing, per‑user pricing, and usage‑based (metered) pricing. Container – Kubernetes‑based offers support multiple Marketplace‑transactable pricing models aligned to how the workload runs in the customer’s environment, including per core, per core in cluster, per node, per node in cluster, per pod, or per cluster pricing, all billed on a usage basis. Container offers can also support custom metered dimensions for application‑specific usage. Alternatively, publishers may offer Bring Your Own License (BYOL) plans, where customers deploy through Marketplace but bring an existing software license. Virtual Machine – Usage-based hourly pricing (flat rate, per vCPU, or per vCPU size), with optional 1-year or 3-year reservation discounts. Publishers may also offer Bring Your Own License (BYOL) plans, where customers bring an existing software license and are billed only for Azure infrastructure. Azure Managed Application – A monthly management or service fee charged by the publisher; Azure infrastructure consumption is billed separately to the customer. Note: Azure Managed Applications are designed to charge for management and operational services, not for SaaS‑style application usage or underlying infrastructure consumption. Buyer‑side assumptions to be aware of For customers to purchase AI apps and agents through these sales models: The customer must be able to purchase through Microsoft Marketplace using their existing Microsoft procurement setup Marketplace purchases align with enterprise buying and governance controls, rather than ad‑hoc vendor contracts For private and multiparty private offers, the customer must be willing to engage in a negotiated Marketplace transaction, rather than pure self‑service checkout Important clarification Supported sales models are consistent across Marketplace offer types. What varies by offer type is how the solution is provisioned, billed, operated, and updated. Sales flexibility alone should not drive offer‑type selection — it must align with the architecture and operating model of the AI app and agent. How this decision impacts everything that follows Offer type selection for AI apps and agents ripples through the rest of the Marketplace journey. They directly shape: Architecture design choices Security and compliance boundaries Fulfillment APIs and billing integration Publishing and certification requirements Cost, scalability, and operational responsibility Follow the series for updates on new posts. What’s next in the journey With the offer type decision in place, the focus shifts to turning that choice into a production‑ready solution. This includes designing an architecture that aligns with your delivery model, establishing clear security and compliance boundaries, and preparing the operational foundations required to run, update, and scale your AI app or agent confidently in customer environments. Getting these elements right early reduces rework and sets the stage for a smoother Marketplace journey. See the next post in the series: Designing Production‑Ready AI App and Agent Architectures for Microsoft Marketplace. Key resources See curated, step-by-step guidance to help you build, publish, or sell your app or agent (no matter where you start) in App Advisor Quick-Start Development Toolkit can connect you with code templates for AI solution patterns Microsoft AI Envisioning Day Events How to build and publish AI apps and agents for Microsoft Marketplace Get over $126K USD in benefits and technical consultations to help you replicate and publish your app with ISV SuccessDesign predictable usage-based billing for AI apps and agents selling in Microsoft Marketplace
Design predictable usage‑based billing for AI apps and agents selling on Microsoft Marketplace Compared to traditional software, pricing and billing feel harder because of the range of AI functionality. They reason, they infer, call tools, process data, all, to complete tasks on the customer’s behalf. If you’re building an AI app or agent to sell in Microsoft Marketplace, usage‑based billing needs to be designed with care, instrumented with intention, and explained in a way customers can trust. This post, along with App Advisor’s curated step-by-step guidance through building, publishing and selling apps for Marketplace, walks through how to do exactly that—without over‑engineering or surprising your customers later. This post is part of a series on building and publishing well-architected AI apps and agents in Microsoft Marketplace. The series focuses on AI apps and agents that are architected, hosted, and operated on Azure, with guidance aligned to building and selling solutions through Microsoft Marketplace. Why billing for AI systems is different Traditional software pricing is usually tied to static entitlements, such as licenses, seats, fixed feature sets and/or a predictable runtime footprint. AI apps and agents don’t work that way. Their cost and value are driven by runtime behavior, such as: How often a model is invoked How many tokens are processed per request How deep reasoning chains go How frequently tools or APIs are called How much data is accessed, transformed, or embedded AI behaviors are subject to change based on the interpretation of prompts and subsequent outputs processed by agents and models. That variability is why pricing AI like traditional software often creates friction—margins erode and customers may lose trust. Pricing decisions should start with business value in mind, not the meter level. Start with plan design before you define meters Plans explain pricing. Meters enforce pricing. Your Marketplace plan is where customers learn what they are buying and how it works. Before you design a single metered dimension, your plan should clearly answer: What AI behaviors are allowed What usage is included What usage becomes billable What limits apply How customers upgrade as they grow An effective plan design typically considers several key factors, such as the distinction between public and private plans, the allocation of included usage versus charges for overages, the balance of base fees against variable consumption, and the provision of clear upgrade paths across different tiers. For instance, if you’re creating an AI support agent, a well-structured plan might offer up to 1,000 resolved conversations each month for a set monthly fee, with additional charges for any conversations beyond that limit and a higher tier that grants access to increased usage allowances. When customers can easily understand what is included, what triggers extra costs, and how they can upgrade as their needs grow, metering feels straightforward and fair. Conversely, when plan details are ambiguous, even accurately measured charges can seem arbitrary, leading to uncomfortable billing discussions. Choose a billing model that matches how your AI behaves When structuring your AI solution’s pricing, begin by evaluating the expected usage patterns and the business value your AI delivers. Actively consider the nature of your agent’s workloads, the variability of customer interactions, and the predictability of operating costs. Flat Fee: Weigh the benefits of flat rate or subscription pricing. Opt for fixed monthly or annual fees when your AI solution operates within defined limits and usage remains consistent. This approach simplifies billing for customers and provides them with clear expectations. Subscription pricing works best for AI agents whose engagement is steady and whose costs don’t fluctuate dramatically. Usage-based (metered): If your AI’s usage varies widely or scales rapidly, usage-based (metered) pricing is often preferable. This model aligns charges with actual consumption, ensuring customers pay only for what they use. To implement it, leverage Marketplace metering APIs to track and bill usage accurately. Consider usage-based pricing when customer demand is unpredictable or your AI’s operational costs increase with higher workloads. Hybrid: For AI solutions that deliver ongoing baseline value but occasionally handle intensive tasks, hybrid models combine the strengths of both approaches. Offer a base subscription for predictable service, then layer in usage charges for overages. This structure is common for agents serving regular needs with intermittent spikes, enabling you to manage cost recovery while giving customers cost certainty. Metering looks different depending on your offer type As you move forward with your plan design and billing model, it’s important to recognize that metering varies significantly based on how your solution is delivered. SaaS offers: Usage tracking is accomplished through Marketplace Metering APIs, allowing you to capture AI-driven activities such as agent task executions, workflow runs, document analysis, or token processing. Your metering should align closely with the customer’s subscription lifecycle, plan tiers, and the included usage, ensuring transparency and consistency as customers progress through different service levels. Container-based offers: You might meter resources like nodes, cores, pods, or clusters—or even application-specific AI dimensions. Accurate attribution across tenants and deployments is crucial, so customers are billed reliably according to their actual consumption. Virtual machine offers: Metering is generally linked to VM runtime or license usage. Although the granularity is often lower than SaaS solutions, billing remains contractually enforced, and publishers must ensure that measurements are dependable and align with customer agreements. Azure Managed Applications: Metering should reflect solution management exclusively, while the underlying infrastructure costs are handled separately through Azure’s billing system. For more about offer types, visit Marketplace Offer Types for AI Apps and agents: SaaS vs Managed App vs Containers. Design metered dimensions customers can actually explain As you refine your billing model for Marketplace offers, it’s vital to consider how your metered dimensions will be perceived and understood by your customers. The most effective dimensions reflect clear, customer-visible value rather than abstract internal system mechanics. For AI-driven solutions, this often means tracking tangible outcomes such as agent tasks executed, successful workflows completed, data objects processed, or AI-assisted actions performed. Choosing these straightforward metrics not only makes invoices easier for customers to interpret but also strengthens your position during billing reviews by tying charges directly to business outcomes. For example, “documents analyzed” is a much clearer and more defensible metric than “token batches processed,” and “resolved workflows” resonates more with customers than “model invocations.” Ultimately, a strong metered dimension is one that a customer can easily explain to their finance or procurement teams. If the charge isn’t readily understandable, it’s a signal to revisit and refine your measurement approach. Track and plan metrics using the Microsoft Marketplace metering service APIs Under‑reporting impacts revenue. Marketplace enforces billing based on what you report. Once you've determined how your solution will be delivered and understood how metering varies by offer type, the next step is to ensure your billing model is both transparent and robust. This is accomplished by tracking your plan and meter metrics through the Microsoft Marketplace Metering Service APIs —a process that not only supports accurate billing but also builds customer trust. Instrumenting usage at runtime is essential: you must reliably capture and report consumption, making sure each event is precisely recorded and associated with the correct subscription and plan. Aggregating this usage and sending it to the marketplace—whether hourly or daily, covering the previous 24 hours—ensures billing remains consistent and defensible. Add metering guardrails to avoid cost surprises As you implement usage-based metering for your Marketplace offers, it’s essential to build guardrails that protect both your business and your customers from unexpected costs. Metering is a critical component of your service reliability, directly influencing customer trust and the overall transparency of your billing model. Ensuring your metering remains both dependable and customer-focused is crucial for maintaining trust and transparency. As you instrument your solution, take care to attribute usage precisely across multiple tenants, so every charge is accurately mapped to the correct customer and subscription. Additionally, aggregating usage on a consistent schedule—such as hourly or daily—not only supports predictable reporting but also helps customers better understand their consumption patterns. These practices lay a solid foundation for metering that supports both your business objectives and your customers’ needs, creating a seamless experience that aligns with the overall goals of your Marketplace offering. Marketplace-ready offerings typically feature: Usage caps that set clear maximums, limiting exposure to unforeseen charges. Soft limits with proactive alerts as customers approach their thresholds. Hard limits to enforce plan boundaries and prevent overages beyond agreed levels. Transparent usage dashboards, giving customers real-time visibility into their consumption. For example, when a customer reaches 80% of their allotted usage, they receive an alert and can decide whether to upgrade their plan, pause usage, or proceed into overage with full awareness—eliminating surprise invoices at month’s end. What’s Next in the Journey After establishing robust billing and metering, the next step is to enhance your AI solution’s performance, optimize API workloads, and improve production observability—laying the groundwork for scalable, efficient, and reliable operations. These capabilities help keep AI systems cost‑effective and reliable as usage grows. Key Resources See curated, step-by-step guidance to help you build, publish, or sell your app or agent (no matter where you start) in App Advisor Quick-Start Development Toolkit can connect you with code templates for AI solution patterns Microsoft AI Envisioning Day Events How to build and publish AI apps and agents for Microsoft Marketplace Get over $126K USD in benefits and technical consultations to help you replicate and publish your app with ISV SuccessQuality and evaluation framework for successful AI apps and agents in Microsoft Marketplace
Why quality in AI is different — and why it matters for Marketplace Traditional software quality spans many dimensions — from performance and reliability to correctness and fault tolerance — but once those characteristics are specified and validated, system behavior is generally stable and repeatable. Quality is assessed through correctness, reliability, performance, and adherence to specifications. AI apps and agents change this equation. Their behavior is inherently non-deterministic and context‑dependent. The same prompt can produce different responses depending on model version, retrieval context, prior interactions, or environmental conditions, which is why non-deterministic AI testing is required to evaluate it reliably. For agentic systems, quality also depends on reasoning paths, tool selection, and how decisions unfold across multiple steps — not just on the final output. This means an AI app can appear functional while still falling short on quality: producing responses that are inconsistent, misleading, misaligned with intent, or unsafe in edge cases. Without a structured evaluation framework, these gaps often surface only in production — in customer environments, after trust has already been extended. For Microsoft Marketplace, this distinction matters. Buyers expect AI apps and agents to behave predictably, operate within clear boundaries, and remain fit for purpose as they scale. AI quality evaluation turns those expectations into something observable — and that visibility is what determines Marketplace readiness. You can always get a curated step-by-step guidance through building, publishing and selling apps for Marketplace through App Advisor. This post is part of a series on building and publishing well-architected AI apps and agents in Microsoft Marketplace. The series focuses on AI apps and agents that are architected, hosted, and operated on Azure, with guidance aligned to building and selling solutions through Microsoft Marketplace. How quality measurement shapes Marketplace readiness AI apps and agents that can demonstrate quality — with documented evaluation frameworks, defined release criteria, and evidence of ongoing measurement — are easier to evaluate, trust, and adopt. Quality evidence reduces friction during Marketplace review, clarifies expectations during customer onboarding, and supports long-term confidence in production. When quality is visible and traceable, the conversation shifts from "does this work?" to "how do we scale it?" — which is exactly where publishers want to be. Publishers who treat quality as a first-class discipline build the foundation for safe iteration, customer retention, and sustainable growth through Microsoft Marketplace. That foundation is built through the decisions, frameworks, and evaluation practices established long before a solution reaches review. What "quality" means for AI apps and agents Quality for AI apps and agents is not a single metric — it spans interconnected dimensions that together define whether a system is doing what it was built to do, for the people it was built to serve. The HAX Design Library — Microsoft's collection of human-AI interaction design patterns — offers practical guidance for each one. These dimensions must be defined before evaluation begins. You can only measure what you have first described. Accuracy and relevance — does the output reflect the right answer, grounded in the right context? HAX patterns Make clear what the system can do (G1) and notify users when the AI is uncertain (G10) help publishers design systems where accuracy is visible and outputs are understood in the right context — not treated as universally authoritative. Safety and alignment — does the output stay within intended use, without harmful, biased, or policy-violating content? HAX patterns Mitigate social biases (G6) and Support efficient correction (G9) help ensure outputs stay within acceptable boundaries — and that users can identify and address issues before they cause downstream harm. Consistency and reliability — does the system behave predictably across users, sessions, and environments? HAX patterns Remember recent interactions (G12) and notify users about changes (G18) keep behavior coherent within sessions and ensure updates to the model or prompts are never silently introduced. Fitness for purpose — does the system do what it was designed to do, for the people it was designed to serve, in the conditions it will actually operate in? HAX patterns make clear how well the system can do what it does (G2) and Act on the user's context and goals (G4) ensure the system responds to what users actually need — not just what they literally typed. These dimensions work together — and gaps in any one of them will surface in production, often in ways that are difficult to trace without a deliberate evaluation framework. Designing an evaluation framework before you ship Evaluation frameworks should be built alongside the solution. At the end, gaps are harder and costlier to close. The discipline mirrors the design-in approach that applies to security and governance: decisions made early shape what is measurable, what is improvable, and what is ready to ship. A well-structured evaluation framework defines five things: What to measure — the quality dimensions that matter most for this solution and its intended use cases. For AI apps and agents, this typically includes task adherence, response coherence, groundedness, and safety — alongside the fitness-for-purpose dimensions defined in the previous section. How to measure it — the methods, tools, and benchmarks used to assess quality consistently. Effective evaluation combines AI-assisted evaluators (which use a model as a judge to score outputs), rule-based evaluators (which apply deterministic logic), and human review for edge cases and safety-relevant responses that automated methods cannot fully capture. Who evaluates — the right combination of automated metrics, human review, and structured customer feedback. No single method is sufficient; the framework defines how each is applied and when human judgment takes precedence. When to evaluate — at defined milestones: during development to establish a baseline, pre-release to validate against acceptance thresholds, at rollout to catch regression, and continuously in production to detect drift as models, prompts, and data evolve. What triggers re-evaluation — model updates, prompt changes, new data sources, tool additions, or meaningful shifts in customer usage patterns. Re-evaluation should be a scheduled and triggered discipline, not an ad hoc response to visible failures. The framework becomes a shared artifact — used by the publisher to release safely, and by customers to understand what quality commitments they are adopting when they deploy the solution in their environment. Evaluate your AI agents - Microsoft Foundry | Microsoft Learn Evaluation methods for AI apps and agents Quality must be assessed across complementary AI evaluation methods — each designed to surface a different category of risk, at a different stage of the solution lifecycle. Automated metric evaluation — evaluators assess agent responses against defined criteria at scale. Some use AI models as judges to score outputs like task adherence, coherence, and groundedness; others apply deterministic rules or text similarity algorithms. Automated evaluation is most effective when acceptance thresholds are defined upfront — for example, a minimum task adherence pass rate before a release proceeds. Safety evaluation — a dedicated evaluation category that identifies potential content risks, policy violations, and harmful outputs in generated responses. Safety evaluators should run alongside quality evaluators, not as a separate afterthought. Human-in-the-loop evaluation — structured expert review of edge cases, borderline outputs, and safety-relevant responses that automated metrics cannot fully capture. Human judgment remains essential for interpreting context, intent, and impact. AI agent red-teaming and adversarial testing — probing the system with challenging, unexpected, or intentionally misused inputs (including prompt injection attempts and tool misuse) to surface failure modes before customers encounter them. Microsoft provides dedicated AI red teaming guidance for agent-based systems. Customer feedback loops — structured collection of real-world signals from users interacting with the system in production. Production feedback closes the gap between what was tested and what customers actually experience. Each method has a distinct role. The evaluation framework defines when and how each is applied — and which results are required before a release proceeds, a change is accepted, or a capability is expanded. Defining release criteria and ongoing quality gates Quality evaluation only drives improvement when it is connected to clear release criteria, often enforced through an LLMOps quality gate. In an LLMOps model, those criteria are automated gates embedded directly into the CI/CD pipeline, applied consistently at every stage of the release cycle. In continuous integration (CI), automated evaluations run with every change — whether that change is a prompt update, a model version, a new tool, or a data source modification. CI gates catch regressions early, before they reach customers, by validating outputs against predefined quality thresholds for task adherence, coherence, groundedness, and safety. In continuous deployment (CD), quality gates determine whether a build is eligible to proceed. Release criteria should define: Minimum acceptable thresholds for each quality dimension — a release does not proceed until those thresholds are met Known failure modes that block release outright versus those that are tracked, monitored, and accepted within defined risk tolerances Deployment constraints — conditions under which a release is paused, rolled back, or progressively expanded to a subset of users before full rollout Ongoing evaluation must be scheduled and triggered. As models, prompts, tools, and customer usage patterns evolve, the baseline shifts. LLMOps treats re-evaluation as a continuous discipline: run evaluations, identify weak areas, adjust, and re-evaluate before changes propagate. This connects directly to governance. Quality evidence — the record of what was measured, when, and against what criteria — is part of the audit trail that makes AI behavior accountable, explainable, and trustworthy over time. For more on the governance foundation this builds on, see Governing AI apps and agents for Marketplace readiness. Quality across the publisher-customer boundary Clear quality ownership reduces friction at onboarding, builds confidence during operation, and protects both parties when behavior deviates. In the Marketplace context, quality is a shared responsibility — but the boundaries are distinct. Publishers are responsible for: Designing and running the evaluation framework during development and release Defining quality dimensions and thresholds that reflect the solution's intended use Providing customers with transparency into what quality means for this solution — without exposing proprietary prompts or internal logic Customers are responsible for: Validating that the solution performs appropriately in their specific environment, with their data and their users Configuring feedback and monitoring mechanisms that surface quality signals in their tenant Treating quality evaluation as a shared ongoing responsibility, not a one-time publisher guarantee When both sides understand their role, quality stops being a handoff and becomes a foundation — one that supports adoption, sustains trust, and enables both parties to respond confidently when behavior shifts. What's next in the journey A strong quality framework sets the baseline — but keeping that quality visible as solutions scale is its own discipline. The next posts in this series explore what comes after the framework is in place: API resilience, performance optimization, and operational observability for AI apps and agents running in production environments. See the next post in the series: Designing a reliable environment strategy for Microsoft Marketplace AI apps and agents | Microsoft Community Hub. Key resources See curated, step-by-step guidance to help you build, publish, or sell your app or agent (no matter where you start) in App Advisor Quick-Start Development Toolkit can connect you with code templates for AI solution patterns Microsoft AI Envisioning Day Events How to build and publish AI apps and agents for Microsoft Marketplace Get over $126K USD in benefits and technical consultations to help you replicate and publish your app with ISV SuccessSuccess with AI apps and agents on Marketplace: the end-to-end
Preparing an AI app or agent for Microsoft Marketplace requires solving a broader set of problems—ones that extend beyond the model and into architecture, security, compliance, operations, and commerce. These requirements often surface late, when teams are already moving toward launch. Teams often reach the same milestone: the AI works, the demo is compelling, and early customers are interested. But when it’s time to publish, transact, and operate that solution through Marketplace, gaps emerge—around security, compliance, reliability, operations, or commerce integration. Whether you are demo ready or starting with a great AI idea, this series is designed to address those challenges across the AI app publishing lifecycle through a connected, end‑to‑end journey. It brings together the decisions and requirements needed to build AI apps and agents that are not only functional, but Marketplace‑ready from day one. You can always get a curated step-by-step guidance through building, publishing and selling apps for Marketplace through App Advisor. This post is part of a series on building and publishing well-architected AI apps and agents on Microsoft Marketplace. The series focuses on AI apps and agents that are architected, hosted, and operated on Azure, with guidance aligned to building and selling solutions through Microsoft Marketplace. Why an end‑to‑end journey matters A working AI app does not automatically mean a Marketplace‑ready AI app. Marketplace readiness spans far more than model selection or prompt engineering. It requires a holistic approach across: Architecture and hosting design Security and AI guardrails Compliance and governance Operational maturity Commerce, billing, and lifecycle integration While guidance exists across each of these areas, it is often fragmented. This series connects those pieces into a single, reusable mental model that software companies can use to design, build, publish, and operate AI apps and agents—supporting end‑to‑end AI readiness with confidence. This first post frames the journey. Each subsequent post goes deep into one stage. The marketplace‑ready AI app and agent lifecycle At a high level, Marketplace‑ready AI apps and agents follow this lifecycle: Define how the AI app and agent will be delivered Identify industry compliance and regulatory requirements Design a production‑ready AI architecture Embed security and AI guardrails into the design Validate compliance and governance Build and test an MVP with potential customers Build for quality, reliability, and scale Integrate with Marketplace commerce Prepare for publishing and go‑live Operate, monitor, and evolve safely Promoting your AI app and agent to close initial sales This lifecycle is intentionally introduced once, at a high level and serves as an AI app launch checklist, where decisions made earlywill shape everything that follows. Throughout the series, this lifecycle serves as a shared reference point. Step 1: Decide how your AI app and agent will be packaged and delivered The first decision is how the AI app and agent will be delivered through Marketplace. Offer types—such as SaaS, Azure Managed Applications, Containers, and Virtual Machines—are not just listing formats. They are delivery models that directly impact: Identity and authentication Billing and metering Deployment responsibilities Operational ownership Customer onboarding experience Supported sales models Choosing an offer type early helps avoid costly redesigns later. Step 2: Design a production‑ready AI architecture Marketplace AI apps and agents are expected to meet enterprise customer expectations for performance, reliability, and security. Architecture decisions must account for: Customer business, compliance, and security needs Offer‑specific hosting best practices For example, SaaS offers typically require: Tenant isolation Environment separation Strong identity boundaries Architecture must also support both AI behavior and Marketplace lifecycle events, such as provisioning, subscription changes, and entitlement checks. Step 3: Secure the AI app and agent and define guardrails Security cannot be treated as a certification checklist at the end of the process. AI introduces new risks beyond traditional applications, including expanded attack surfaces through prompts and inputs. Frameworks such as the OWASP GenAI Top 10 provide a useful lens for identifying these risks. Guardrails must be enforced: At design time through architecture and policy decisions At runtime through monitoring, enforcement, and response AI‑specific incident response must also factor in privacy regulations and customer trust. Step 4: Treat AI agents as compliance‑governed systems AI agents and their data are first‑class compliance subjects. This includes: Prompts and responses Contextual and training data Actions taken by the agent These artifacts must be auditable and governed inline, not retroactively. At the same time, publishers must balance compliance with intellectual property protection by enabling explainability and transparency without exposing proprietary logic. Step 5: Build for quality, reliability, and scale Marketplace buyers expect predictable behavior. AI apps and agents should formalize: Quality and evaluation frameworks Reliability and performance targets Scaling and cost optimization strategies Quality, reliability, and performance directly influence customer trust and satisfaction. Step 6: Integrate with Marketplace commerce and lifecycle APIs Marketplace is not “just a listing,” but a runtime contract that depends on AI commerce integration. For transactable offers that help you sell globally direct to customers or through channel and allow customers to count sales of your app against their cloud commitments, Marketplace becomes an operational contract. Subscription state, entitlements, billing, and metering are runtime responsibilities of the application. For SaaS offers, SaaS Fulfillment APIs define the source of truth for subscription lifecycle events. Integrate Marketplace lead flows with your CRM using the Marketplace lead connector for CRM Step 7: Prepare for publishing, certification, and go‑live Publishing requires more than code completion. Marketplace certification validates: Security posture Customer experience Operational readiness Using templates, checklists, and tooling such as Quick Start Development Toolkit, Marketplace Rewards resources, and App Advisor reduces friction and rework. Step 8: Operate and evolve safely after go‑live Launch is not the end of the journey. AI apps and agents evolve continuously, making: Safe deployment strategies CI/CD discipline Rollback and monitoring practices This is essential for protecting both customers and publishers. Operational maturity also includes maintaining Marketplace offer assets (store images) as the product evolves. Use this framework to help you build a production ready AI app and agent, well architected, secured, reliable, scalable and integrated with Microsoft Marketplace global commerce engine. Step 9: Promote your AI app and agent Becoming Marketplace‑ready does not end at publication. AI app and agent success also depends on how effectively the solution is discovered, evaluated, and trusted by customers within Microsoft Marketplace and the broader Microsoft ecosystem. Promotion in Microsoft Marketplace is tightly integrated with how customers discover and purchase solutions. AI apps and agents are surfaced through Marketplace search, categories, and in‑product experiences, and once your AI app or agent becomes Azure IP co-sell eligible - the purchase of your offer can count towards your customers' Microsoft Azure Consumption Commitments (MACC) motivating customers to buy your offer. This reduces buying friction and accelerates evaluation‑to‑purchase transitions. Top activities to grow your sales: Optimize your listing once you publish your app, by getting an agentic review of your published listing in seconds, based on Marketplace listing best practices and expert Microsoft editorial guidance. Promote your Marketplace offer and track your engagement following best practices. Manage and nurture leads from trials to purchase, and from purchase to higher level SKUs. Private offers, which allow publishers to create customer-specific or negotiated offers directly through Marketplace, including multiparty private offers involving Microsoft channel partners Sell through channel, use resale enabled offers to enable resellers and channel partners to sell your app to their customers, Co-sell motions, where eligible AI apps and agents are sold jointly with Microsoft sellers and count toward customer cloud consumption commitments Effective customer engagement depends on alignment between how the AI app and agent is positioned and how it is delivered. Clear descriptions, accurate architectural boundaries, and transparent operational expectations help customers move confidently from discovery to production adoption. For publishers, programs such as ISV Success provide guidance and tooling to help align technical readiness, Marketplace requirements, and go‑to‑market execution as AI apps and agents scale through Microsoft Marketplace. Sales don't happen by accident, it's essential you engage in promoting your marketing. When promotion is treated as a first‑class step in the lifecycle, it reinforces trust, accelerates evaluation, and increases the likelihood that an AI app and agent transitions from initial interest to sustained use. How to use this series This series is designed to be used in two ways: Read sequentially to understand the full Marketplace‑ready journey Use individual posts alongside Microsoft Learn content, App Advisor, and Quick Start resources for deeper implementation guidance This series provides a structured, end‑to‑end view of what it takes to move from a working AI app and agent to a solution that customers can trust, deploy, and buy through Marketplace. It is designed to complement hands‑on implementation guidance, including Microsoft Learn resources such as Publishing AI agents to the Microsoft marketplace, and to help software companies navigate Marketplace readiness with fewer surprises and less rework. The upcoming post is about choosing your marketplace offer type which defines the operating model of your AI app or agent on Marketplace and influences key architectural decisions for your app or agent. Key resources See curated, step-by-step guidance to help you build, publish, or sell your app or agent (no matter where you start) in App Advisor, Quick-Start Development Toolkit Microsoft AI Envisioning Day Events How to build and publish AI apps and agents for Microsoft Marketplace Get over $126K USD in benefits and technical consultations to help you replicate and publish your app with ISV Success
Accelerate healthcare innovation with Dragon Copilot apps and agents in Microsoft Marketplace
Imagine spending less time navigating systems and more time caring for patients. AI brings data, insights, and content directly into the flow of work. Dragon Copilot streamlines clinical documentation and routine tasks, so clinicians spend less time navigating systems and more time focused on patient care. By simplifying physician and nursing charting, notes, flowsheets, and radiology reporting, it reduces rework and cognitive burden, helping care teams work more efficiently and confidently throughout the day. Microsoft Marketplace now supports Dragon Copilot AI Apps and Agents, creating a scalable path for partners to bring innovation directly into clinical workflows. Dragon Copilot unifies intelligence and context at the point of care, while Microsoft Marketplace is how partner innovation becomes part of that experience, enabling AI apps and agents to operate within the trusted procurement, security, and governance frameworks customers already rely on. Partners building AI apps and agents for Dragon Copilot can use Microsoft Marketplace as their commercial engine. Marketplace supports multiple enterprise‑ready sales motions, whether selling direct, or through partners for channel-led sales. This gives partners flexibility in how they go to market and meet customers where they prefer to buy. With support for per‑user and flat‑rate pricing, flexible billing options, and contract terms ranging from monthly to multi‑year, Marketplace enables partners to align their commercial model to customer procurement needs while scaling globally through trusted Microsoft purchasing, security, and global commerce. Dragon Copilot offer types in Microsoft Marketplace Microsoft Marketplace will support a family of Dragon Copilot offer types designed for partner solutions across clinical roles and workflows. The first offer type - Dragon Copilot Physician Apps and Agents - is now available, enabling partners to publish solutions that surface directly within physician workflows. Each offer type defines the intended user, where the solution appears in Dragon Copilot, and how customers discover, purchase, and deploy it, making offer selection a strategic decision that shapes monetization and the end-to-end customer experience. Supported offer type Dragon Copilot Physician Apps and Agents AI solutions that will surface directly inside Dragon Copilot at the physician point of care. They deliver in‑workflow access to insights, task automation, clinical decision support, and documentation assistance without requiring clinicians to leave their existing tools. These solutions are purchased through Microsoft Marketplace and become automatically available within Dragon Copilot after deployment. (Available in the United States) Best for: AI apps or agents built specifically for physician workflows Partners delivering role‑based intelligence Scenarios where fast, in‑context action inside Dragon Copilot is critical How it works Bringing an app or agent to Dragon Copilot through Microsoft Marketplace is designed to be simple and enterprise‑ready. Marketplace provides the commercial, operational, and discovery foundation so partners can focus on building differentiated AI experiences. Healthcare organizations can also choose to build and deploy apps or agents in Dragon Copilot and expand usage through the Marketplace. Step 1: Create offer selecting the offer type Begin in Partner Center by choosing the Dragon Copilot offer type that best aligns to your solution and target clinical persona. This choice determines where your solution surfaces inside Dragon Copilot, which roles it supports, and how customers discover, purchase, and activate it. After choosing the offer type, define pricing, billing, contract terms, and sales options. Microsoft Marketplace offers flexible pricing, sales channels, anc contract lengths to meet healthcare organizations' needs. Step 2: Customer discovery After publishing, customers can discover and purchase Dragon Copilot AI apps and agents through Microsoft Marketplace and through in-product experiences like, Azure. Step 3: Customer purchase Customers purchase Dragon Copilot solutions through the Azure portal using the same streamlined experience they use for other offers on Microsoft Marketplace. Customers complete their subscription details, and billing begins once they configure their account. From there, they are redirected to the Dragon Admin Center to complete a few final configuration steps and begin using the solution. Step 4: Customer usage After purchase, customers are guided to the Dragon Admin Center, where they activate and manage their Dragon Copilot solutions. From the admin experience, customers can complete any required configuration, assign the app or agent to the appropriate users or roles, and control how it is made available within Dragon Copilot workflows. The Dragon Admin Center provides a centralized place for customers to enable partner solutions, manage access, and ensure deployments align with their security, governance, and operational policies so AI apps and agents are ready for use at the point of care with minimal setup. What this means for you As Dragon Copilot adoption accelerates, Microsoft Marketplace provides a clear, scalable foundation for partner participation. With a dedicated Dragon Copilot offer type, partners can publish AI apps, agents, through a defined commercial model, gain targeted visibility through Dragon Copilot–specific discovery, and take advantage of Microsoft go‑to‑market programs. Learn more Read through our documentation on how extensions for Dragon Copilot work and how to build your own - AI apps and agents | Microsoft Learn Check out the sample repo with sample code and more - microsoft/dragon-copilot-extension-samplesMicrosoft Marketplace Partner Digest - August 2026
What's new in Marketplace Convert more buyers into customers Microsoft recently expanded Marketplace listing capabilities with enhancements to free trials and the introduction of an option to request private offers, giving partners more ways to engage buyers at different stages of the purchasing journey. Customers can now discover and evaluate solutions through expanded trial experiences and transition more easily into paid subscription discussions by requesting custom pricing and terms directly from your Marketplace listings. ✨ Help customers evaluate your solution with free trials What's new On July 23 we announced the release of Marketplace enhanced trial capabilities. Customers can try solutions with confidence with the free trials in Microsoft Marketplace. Trials are available for multiple offer types, including SaaS, Azure virtual machines, Dynamics 365, and Power BI offers. New capabilities include: Custom meter trials: Partners can configure trials for SaaS solutions with metered pricing. Flexible trial durations: Partners can now configure SaaS trial durations from 1 to 180 days. Partner analytics: Partners can access SaaS trial analytics - including free trials initiated, active free trials, free trials converted, free trials not converted, and average trial duration - all within Partner Center Insights workspace. Customer discovery and management: Customers can better discover and manage trials. Upgrade to paid subscription during trial: Customers can upgrade to paid subscription at public pricing any time during a SaaS trial. Why it matters With enhanced trial capabilities in Microsoft Marketplace, partners can run self-service trials that make it easier for customers to try before they buy — whether for metered, per-user, or flat-rate pricing offers. Marketplace gives partners one place to manage trials end to end — from provisioning and mid-trial changes to insights — while improving offer discoverability through improved search, filters, and dedicated trial badges. Recommended action Review your Marketplace offers and trial strategy. For eligible SaaS offers, evaluate whether free trials can help you engage with more qualified buyers, faster. 📖 Learn more about free trials for SaaS ⚡ Customers can now request a private offer on Marketplace What’s new As of July 20, you can add a private offer request option directly on your Marketplace product pages. Customer requests are captured as Marketplace leads in referrals workspace and connected customer relationship management (CRM) integrations you’ve setup. This setting is disabled by default. You can easily activate it for applicable public offers. Why it matters More and more customers are seeking customized contracts and subscription pricing and terms tailored to their individual needs. This simple call to action reduces friction and helps you start the conversation with prospective buyers. Recommended action In the Marketplace offers workspace of Partner Center, update each of your offers for which you provide customers private offers. Enable the Request Private Offer setting and republish the offer. Events Recent events Multiparty private offers expand channel growth opportunities in Australia, Japan and South Africa Multiparty private offers continue to help software companies accelerate channel-led sales through Microsoft Marketplace. This past month, we hosted two region-focused Marketplace office hours sessions designed to help partners better understand local market opportunities, engage distributors and resellers, and scale Marketplace transactions through channel ecosystems in Australia and Japan. Whether you're looking to expand an existing Marketplace motion or explore new geographic opportunities, these sessions will provide practical guidance and market-specific insights to help you grow. See a list of currently supported countries/regions. Check out the recorded sessions: • Channel growth in Australia (English) • Channel growth in Japan (Japanese) Helping developers build, monetize, and scale AI solutions with Marketplace Discover how Microsoft Marketplace helps software companies access AI models and developer tools, accelerate application development, and reach customers through Microsoft's global commercial ecosystem. Learn how to monetize applications and agents without building and maintaining your own commerce and distribution infrastructure. Watch the recording Upcoming events Build AI-powered solutions, monetize through Microsoft Marketplace, and scale revenue through Microsoft expertise, skilling, and investments. Frontier Accelerate for Marketplace is an upcoming unified offering for software development companies to bring AI-powered solutions to market, drive customer acquisition and revenue growth, and scale through Microsoft Marketplace with technical guidance, skilling, and investments aligned to every stage of growth. 📆 Join us on August 26th before general availability to learn about the new offering, benefit alignment, migration guidance, and enrollment requirements. Next steps Turn insights into FY27 success — starting today. Ready to carry the momentum forward from MCAPS Start for Partners? Get everything you need to refine and execute your FY27 strategy in the Partner Activation Zone, including session recordings, ready-to-use playbooks, and tools to start building pipeline. Leverage your Marketplace Rewards benefits Discover use cases and how to leverage your Azure sponsorship. With Marketplace Rewards Azure sponsorships, eligible software development companies can increase sales through Microsoft Marketplace by using the sponsorships for customer deployments tied to Marketplace deals—and to offset infrastructure costs from eligible free trial offers. 📍Review the Marketplace Rewards Azure sponsorship policy guide for the latestAPI resilience and reliability patterns for AI apps and agents selling through Microsoft Marketplace
Why API resilience is a Marketplace readiness requirement The previous post Design Predictable AI Performance for Apps Selling Through Microsoft Marketplace showed how to design systems that behave predictably when things go right. This post focuses on what happens when they do not. Imagine an enterprise customer launching a trial of your AI agent from Microsoft Marketplace. The first few interactions work beautifully. Then a more complex request triggers a multi‑step agent workflow: retrieval, enrichment, validation, approval. One downstream API stalls for just long enough to push the workflow beyond its timeout. The agent retries. The retry fans out into additional calls. Tokens burn. Costs rise. Eventually the entire interaction fails ambiguously. From the customer’s perspective, the trial just “didn’t work” with no explanation or architecture diagram. Just a stalled agent and decreased confidence. AI apps and agents treat APIs as their execution backbone. Every model invocation, tool call, retrieval query, and workflow step depends on APIs behaving within expected bounds. Solutions with a single unstable dependency can affect many tenants simultaneously. You can always get curated step-by-step guidance through building, publishing and selling apps for Marketplace through App Advisor. This post is part of a series on building and publishing well-architected AI apps and agents in Microsoft Marketplace. The series focuses on AI apps and agents that are architected, hosted, and operated on Azure, with guidance aligned to building and selling solutions through Microsoft Marketplace. How AI and agentic workloads stress APIs differently Traditional API platforms often assume linear, predictable request patterns. One request in, one response out. AI apps produce bursty, non‑linear traffic shaped by user behavior, token budgets, and inference variability. Agents amplify this further. A single user request may trigger planning, branching logic, parallel tool calls, and dynamic retries—all before returning a result. Single‑turn inference calls tend to be synchronous and bounded. Agent workflows may run for minutes, traverse multiple services, and consume tokens unpredictably depending on intermediate outcomes. Happy‑path assumptions break down quickly. Reliability also compounds mathematically. If you chain five APIs, each with 99.9% availability, the composite reliability drops to roughly 99.5%. Add retries without bounds, and the system can degrade traffic rather than absorb failure. For AI systems, reliability must be defined across multiple dimensions: Availability: Are dependencies reachable? Timeout behavior: How long will the system wait? Error propagation: What information crosses boundaries? Recovery safety: Can operations be retried without harm? Data access and integrity: Is contextual data available, relevant, and trustworthy? Defining reliability for AI systems Reliability becomes the mechanism that preserves trust when uncertainty appears. Reliability in AI systems is more than “the model didn’t fail.” That framing is incomplete. True reliability means providing predictable behavior under partial failure, bounding execution when dependencies degrade, and failing clearly, safely, and consistently instead of unpredictably. For publishers providing AI solutions on Marketplace, this includes protecting customers from ambiguous states—workflows that half‑complete, retries that silently multiply costs, or agents that continue planning after their assumptions are no longer valid. Designing resilient API boundaries The shift toward reliable AI systems starts with how you think about API boundaries. In this context, an API boundary is the line where responsibility changes—between your app and a dependency, between orchestration and execution, or between your system and a customer‑ or partner‑owned service. These boundaries are deliberate points of control. You must decide: how long is a call allowed to run? What happens if it fails? Is a retry safe, and if so, how many times? When agents assume that APIs will be reliable, fast, or always available, failure starts becoming systemic. Well‑designed API boundaries stop execution early when reliability assumptions break. Explicit timeouts keep your system from waiting indefinitely when a dependency slows or an API call hangs. Bounded retries allow brief recovery without inflating cost, load, or complexity. Together, these constraints help your system behave predictably, even under stress. This is where your enforcement layers come into focus. For many Marketplace solutions, Azure API Management is where you turn design intent into predictable behavior. At this boundary, you define how your system responds under pressure—how much traffic is allowed, how tokens are budgeted, and how long requests are permitted to run. These policies give you a steady way to shape execution across tenants, even when the systems behind the boundary behave unpredictably. As workflows grow more complex, orchestration layers such as Azure Durable Functions or Logic Apps carry that intent forward. They give you a way to manage long‑running or multi‑step operations explicitly, with clear execution limits, defined retry behavior, and compensating actions when steps fail so you can keep control over how work progresses and how it concludes. Core API resilience patterns for AI apps and agents Several foundational patterns appear repeatedly in resilient AI solutions published on Marketplace. Timeouts and deadline propagation ensure no call waits indefinitely. For AI workloads, these limits should be token‑aware—longer prompts or higher‑cost models require proportional constraints. Deadlines should propagate across calls so upstream services remain informed. Bounded retries protect against transient failures but with pre-defined limits and quotas. In agent workflows, retries should be explicit, counted, and observable. Retrying API calls that execute actions, attempt and fail authentications, or create updates that exceed quotas can lead to runaway failures. Circuit breakers prevent cascading failure by opening when error rates exceed thresholds. Unlike guardrails—which enforce policy by intent—circuit breakers react to system state by pausing execution paths that are no longer reliable. Azure API Management and resilience libraries such as Polly in .NET provide practical implementations. Bulkheads isolate high‑risk or high‑cost operations. Separate concurrency pools, queues, or compute tiers prevent one tenant or workflow from consuming disproportionate resources. This is especially critical for expensive reasoning paths or third‑party dependencies. Idempotency keeps retries safe by ensuring that repeating the same request produces the same result. Agents that take real‑world actions—creating records, approving workflows, triggering payments—must attach idempotency keys so repeat attempts do not multiply side effects. Together, these patterns do not eliminate failure. They contain it. Agent‑specific reliability risks and mitigations Agent autonomy shifts how reliability behaves in practice. Agents change the shape of failure. Because they plan, reason, and act across multiple steps, a single issue rarely stays isolated. When autonomy increases, failures affect more of the workflow and do so faster. Most agent failures fall into two categories and treating them the same way creates instability. Tool failures occur when an external dependency slows, times out, or becomes unavailable. An API may reject a request, enforce a quota, or fail temporarily. These failures require containment. Your system should pause execution, apply fallback behavior, or exit cleanly once limits are reached. Allowing the agent to keep calling tools under these conditions increases cost and load without improving results. Planning failures occur when the agent’s reasoning breaks down. The plan itself is flawed, incomplete, or loops without converging on an outcome. These failures require correction. Step limits, loop detection, and execution caps keep planning from expanding indefinitely and signal when the system should stop and reassess. Making this distinction explicit is what keeps agent behavior predictable. You define how far execution can go—how many steps are allowed, how long a request may run end‑to‑end, and when the system should pause or conclude. By enforcing these limits outside the model, you give agents room to reason while your system provides the structure that contains failure and keeps execution steady as conditions change. As explored in Designing AI Guardrails for Apps and Agents in Microsoft Marketplace, guardrails define what an agent is allowed to do. Resilience patterns determine how your system holds up when dependencies degrade. Together, they enable agents that feel capable and autonomous while remaining stable, bounded, and ready for Marketplace scale. Reliability across external and third‑party APIs Marketplace AI apps rarely operate in isolation. They depend on customer‑owned systems, partner services, SaaS platforms, and external LLM APIs—each with different SLAs and failure modes. Publishers must absorb this variability rather than pass it directly to customers. That means handling throttling gracefully, surfacing authentication failures clearly, and isolating quota exhaustion. Token‑based rate limiting via Azure API Management is especially important for downstream LLM calls, where cost and availability intersect. Remember the SLA math: your effective reliability is the product of every dependency. Designing for the weakest link protects customer perception—and your own margins. Environment‑aware reliability validation As outlined in Designing a reliable environment strategy for Microsoft Marketplace, environment strategy underpins reliable promotion and confident scaling. Reliability cannot be tested only in production. Before Marketplace submission, failure behavior should be validated in staging. Timeouts should trigger as expected. Retries should stop when designed to stop. Circuit breakers should open—and close—predictably. Equally important is environment consistency. Dev, Stage, and Prod environments should enforce the same resilience policies, even if scale differs. Otherwise, failures will appear only when customers are watching. Azure Chaos Studio provides controlled fault injection to test these scenarios intentionally. The goal is to confirm that systems behave consistently under stress. Reliability, ownership, and Marketplace readiness As a publisher, you are responsible for resilient defaults, protection against cascading failures, predictable failure modes, and documented service expectations. Customers, in turn, remain responsible for the reliability of their downstream systems, environment‑level scaling, and internal monitoring. When this boundary is explicit, teams know where responsibility sits and how to respond when conditions change. When ownership is unclear, support escalations increase, accountability blurs, and confidence drops on both sides. Marketplace customers expect clarity about what your solution controls, what it depends on, and how issues are handled when they arise. That clarity directly shapes Marketplace readiness. Reliable execution paths influence certification reviews, determine whether enterprise pilots progress, and establish long‑term operational confidence. During trials, predictable behavior feels professional. It reduces surprise costs, shortens evaluation cycles, and makes adoption decisions easier. In this way, reliability acts as a trust signal and a sales enabler. When customers see that ownership is well-defined and failure is handled intentionally, AI adoption through Marketplace feels safe, bounded, and ready to scale. What’s next in the journey Once execution paths are resilient, your solution’s behavior becomes visible. Circuit breaker transitions, retry frequency, timeout events, and error propagation turn into operational signals that show how your AI app or agent behaves under real load and across customer tenants. This foundation enables the next layer of operational maturity—observability, safe deployment practices, CI/CD for agents, and ongoing evaluation—so you can understand behavior end‑to‑end and operate confidently as usage grows. Reliability makes AI adoption safe; observability makes it sustainable. Key Resources See curated, step-by-step guidance to help you build, publish, or sell your app or agent (no matter where you start) in App Advisor Quick-Start Development Toolkit can connect you with code templates for AI solution patterns Microsoft AI Envisioning Day Events How to build and publish AI apps and agents for Microsoft Marketplace Get over $126K USD in benefits and technical consultations to help you replicate and publish your app with ISV Success
