ERC-8004 vs ERC-8217

Trustless Agents compared with Agent NFT Identity Bindings.

No shared functions

0 shared · 25 vs 1 functions · 0% of the smaller surface

ERC-8217 lists ERC-8004 in its requires field but declares no inheritance in its interface, so any surface it inherits is not counted here.

🤝 Shared (0)

None.

`0xc2349ab2`	`appendResponse(uint256,address,uint64,string,bytes32)`
`0x8d5d0c2d`	`getAgentValidations(uint256)`
`0x00339509`	`getAgentWallet(uint256)`
`0x42dd519c`	`getClients(uint256)`
`0xbc4d861b`	`getIdentityRegistry()`
`0xf2d81759`	`getLastIndex(uint256,address)`
`0xcb4799f2`	`getMetadata(uint256,string)`
`0x6e04cacd`	`getResponseCount(uint256,address,uint64,address[])`
`0x81bbba58`	`getSummary(uint256,address[],string,string)`
`0x1b7cabd6`	`getSummary(uint256,address[],string)`
`0xff2febfc`	`getValidationStatus(bytes32)`
`0x4bf3158c`	`getValidatorRequests(address)`
`0x3c036a7e`	`giveFeedback(uint256,int128,uint8,string,string,string,string,bytes32)`
`0xd9d84224`	`readAllFeedback(uint256,address[],string,string,bool)`
`0x232b0810`	`readFeedback(uint256,address,uint64)`
`0x1aa3a008`	`register()`
`0x8ea42286`	`register(string,(string,bytes)[])`
`0xf2c298be`	`register(string)`
`0x4ab3ca99`	`revokeFeedback(uint256,uint64)`
`0x0af28bd3`	`setAgentURI(uint256,string)`
`0x2d1ef5ae`	`setAgentWallet(uint256,address,uint256,bytes)`
`0x466648da`	`setMetadata(uint256,string,bytes)`
`0x3fddcf19`	`unsetAgentWallet(uint256)`
`0xaaf400c4`	`validationRequest(address,uint256,string,bytes32)`
`0x3d659a96`	`validationResponse(bytes32,uint8,string,bytes32,string)`

0x4d69ebc2 bindingOf(uint256)

Both surfaces parsed from the canonical specifications: ERC-8004 · ERC-8217