# Stablecoin invoice reconciliation — Stable Reconcile Canonical: https://reconcile.agiscorecard.com/guide.html Reviewed: 2026-09-19 Author: AGI Scorecard team Version: 1.2.0 Stable Reconcile compares your declared invoices with recorded stablecoin transfers. It separates partial payments, pending transfers and wrong-network records, with exact decimal totals. Use it for a local exception review before updating your books. ## Method Match the declared invoice ID, network and asset exactly. Sum finalized amounts with fixed-point integers. Pending and reverted records never settle an invoice. ## Workflow 1. Export sanitized invoices and transfers from your own system. Use a unique event ID, including a log index where needed. 2. Enter or import the records. Confirm network and token identity against your source. 3. Run reconciliation and review every exception before updating your accounting system. ## Common mistake Counting a pending transfer as paid hides settlement risk. Keep pending amounts separate and verify finality with your original source. ## Worked scenarios ### Split & partial payments One invoice matches; another is short by 20. Fictional inputs: https://reconcile.agiscorecard.com/examples/split.json Run: https://reconcile.agiscorecard.com/?scenario=split#workbench - Invoices: 2 - Matched: 1 - Transfer exceptions: 1 ### A transfer is still pending See why a pending transfer does not settle the invoice. Fictional inputs: https://reconcile.agiscorecard.com/examples/pending.json Run: https://reconcile.agiscorecard.com/?scenario=pending#workbench - Invoices: 2 - Matched: 0 - Transfer exceptions: 1 ### Customer paid twice Review an overpayment while keeping the duplicate event IDs distinct. Fictional inputs: https://reconcile.agiscorecard.com/examples/overpaid.json Run: https://reconcile.agiscorecard.com/?scenario=overpaid#workbench - Invoices: 2 - Matched: 0 - Transfer exceptions: 1 ## Questions ### Why can a stablecoin invoice remain unpaid after a transfer? The transfer may be pending, assigned to another invoice, or recorded on a different chain or token contract. Reconciliation needs the invoice, network and asset to agree; a matching ticker alone is insufficient. ### Is Stable Reconcile free, and do I need a wallet? All current functions are free beta. No account, wallet connection, subscription or model API key is needed. No wallet sync, automatic matching, FX, refund processing, tax accounting or independent finality checks. ### Can I use my own records and keep them private? Yes. Enter records, import JSON or paste CSV into record groups. Inputs and comparison snapshots stay in this browser tab. Share-example links contain only a public scenario name. Review downloaded reports before sharing your records. ## Alternatives and official sources - [Request Finance](https://www.requestfinance.com/pricing): Payment operations, accounting integrations and automated reconciliation; Growth is listed at $250/month billed annually. - [Cryptio](https://cryptio.co/): Institutional digital-asset accounting, reconciliation and ERP workflows. Choose an integrated accounting product when you need bank/wallet ingestion, approvals or an audit trail across a team. This small worksheet has no financial-system integration. ## Limits No wallet sync, automatic matching, FX, refund processing, tax accounting or independent finality checks. Amounts are exact to 8 decimals. Network and asset identifiers are exact, case-sensitive labels; use a contract or issuer identifier, not just a ticker. Finality is supplied by you. No blockchain, wallet balance, issuer solvency, exchange rate, refund or payment is verified. Partial and multiple payments are supported; refunds must be reconciled separately. ## Input and output Structural schema: https://reconcile.agiscorecard.com/input.schema.json The engine additionally validates ranges, dates, amount formats, uniqueness and cross-field rules. Input JSON and CSV paste are processed locally. No model, account or wallet is needed. Reports can be downloaded as JSON or Markdown and printed locally. Public scenario links never include user records. ## Price and license Current functions are free beta. No paid plan or update SLA is offered. Tool bundle license: https://reconcile.agiscorecard.com/LICENSE.txt Privacy: https://reconcile.agiscorecard.com/privacy.html --- # Agent evaluation evidence — Agent Evidence Canonical: https://evidence.agiscorecard.com/guide.html Reviewed: 2026-09-19 Author: AGI Scorecard team Version: 1.2.0 Agent Evidence reviews imported task outcomes within one task, version and date window. It deduplicates sample labels and shows failures, exclusions and uncertainty. It helps review a supplier comparison; it does not run evaluations or verify reviewer identities. ## Method Filter to a dated task/version cohort. Exclude self/unknown relations and future/stale records. Collapse repeated sample labels, treating conflicts conservatively; show a descriptive 95% Wilson interval. ## Workflow 1. Use a fixed set of tasks with explicit acceptance rules. Export actual outcomes. 2. Declare reviewer relationships and dates. Keep failures and disagreements. 3. Review sample coverage and uncertainty before comparing suppliers. ## Common mistake Treating two reviews of one case as two independent tasks overstates the evidence. This worksheet collapses repeated sample labels and exposes conflicts. ## Worked scenarios ### Repeated task samples See how the evidence denominator changes after deduplication. Fictional inputs: https://evidence.agiscorecard.com/examples/duplicates.json Run: https://evidence.agiscorecard.com/?scenario=duplicates#workbench - Providers: 1 - Excluded records: 1 - Sample sets: Aligned labels only ### Reviewers disagree A conflicting result remains a conflict, not an extra success. Fictional inputs: https://evidence.agiscorecard.com/examples/conflict.json Run: https://evidence.agiscorecard.com/?scenario=conflict#workbench - Providers: 1 - Excluded records: 1 - Sample sets: Aligned labels only ### Wrong agent version A result from a different version cannot improve this cohort. Fictional inputs: https://evidence.agiscorecard.com/examples/version.json Run: https://evidence.agiscorecard.com/?scenario=version#workbench - Providers: 1 - Excluded records: 2 - Sample sets: Aligned labels only ## Questions ### Can I compare agents using a single success percentage? Only after checking task coverage, versions, dates and the denominator. Duplicate samples, self-reviews and selection bias can make the same percentage describe very different evidence. A small sample should remain visibly uncertain. ### Is Agent Evidence free, and do I need a wallet? All current functions are free beta. No account, wallet connection, subscription or model API key is needed. No public reputation ranking, identity verification, calibrated prediction or Sybil detection. ### Can I use my own records and keep them private? Yes. Enter records, import JSON or paste CSV into record groups. Inputs and comparison snapshots stay in this browser tab. Share-example links contain only a public scenario name. Review downloaded reports before sharing your records. ## Alternatives and official sources - [8004scan](https://8004scan.io/): Agent discovery, network exploration, rankings and ecosystem health signals. - [Promptfoo](https://www.promptfoo.dev/docs/intro/): Local and CI evaluation, assertions, provider comparisons and red teaming. - [ERC-8004](https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-8004): Public identity, reputation and validation signals; its specification describes Sybil/spam concerns. Use Promptfoo to run evaluations and a registry explorer to discover agents. This tool reviews an imported evidence set; it does not run agents or establish trusted identities. ## Limits No public reputation ranking, identity verification, calibrated prediction or Sybil detection. The Wilson interval is a descriptive binomial interval. It assumes independent representative samples; shared reviewers, copied tasks and selection bias violate that assumption. It is not a calibrated reputation score. Reviewer independence, task IDs and outcomes are declared by the submitter. No identity, signature, ownership, Sybil resistance or future performance is verified. Matching sample labels do not prove matching inputs. Compare raw task fixtures before selecting a supplier. ## Input and output Structural schema: https://evidence.agiscorecard.com/input.schema.json The engine additionally validates ranges, dates, amount formats, uniqueness and cross-field rules. Input JSON and CSV paste are processed locally. No model, account or wallet is needed. Reports can be downloaded as JSON or Markdown and printed locally. Public scenario links never include user records. ## Price and license Current functions are free beta. No paid plan or update SLA is offered. Tool bundle license: https://evidence.agiscorecard.com/LICENSE.txt Privacy: https://evidence.agiscorecard.com/privacy.html --- # LLM fallback cost calculator — Route Lab Canonical: https://route.agiscorecard.com/guide.html Reviewed: 2026-09-19 Author: AGI Scorecard team Version: 1.2.0 Route Lab compares short supplier sequences using entered cost, success and latency assumptions. It checks the worst-case total against your budget before sorting feasible options by expected cost. It is an offline planning tool; no model or payment is called. ## Method Enumerate distinct allowed candidates up to three attempts. Reject sequences over total budget or latency, then compare expected cost among those meeting the supplied success target. ## Workflow 1. Estimate each candidate from the same task cohort and include every attempt cost. 2. Set an exact worst-case budget, latency bound and quality target. 3. Review assumptions, export the plan, then validate in your own shadow workload. ## Common mistake Two suppliers can fail on the same tasks. Multiplying independent failure rates can overstate reliability when they share models, infrastructure or task weaknesses. ## Worked scenarios ### Cheap first, reliable second Compare expected cost with the maximum you could spend. Fictional inputs: https://route.agiscorecard.com/examples/fallback.json Run: https://route.agiscorecard.com/?scenario=fallback#workbench - Feasible sequences: 3 - Sequences checked: 4 - Currency: USD ### Budget is too tight Find out when none of the sequences meets every condition. Fictional inputs: https://route.agiscorecard.com/examples/tight.json Run: https://route.agiscorecard.com/?scenario=tight#workbench - Feasible sequences: 0 - Sequences checked: 4 - Currency: USD ### The fallback takes too long A low expected cost cannot bypass a latency constraint. Fictional inputs: https://route.agiscorecard.com/examples/slow.json Run: https://route.agiscorecard.com/?scenario=slow#workbench - Feasible sequences: 0 - Sequences checked: 4 - Currency: USD ## Questions ### Should an agent budget use expected cost or worst-case cost? Use worst-case cost for a hard spending limit. Expected cost is useful for comparison but may hide an expensive fallback. Success estimates also depend on how failures correlate across providers. ### Is Route Lab free, and do I need a wallet? All current functions are free beta. No account, wallet connection, subscription or model API key is needed. Offline planning only. No live requests, model judge, payment, dynamic bandit or production routing. ### Can I use my own records and keep them private? Yes. Enter records, import JSON or paste CSV into record groups. Inputs and comparison snapshots stay in this browser tab. Share-example links contain only a public scenario name. Review downloaded reports before sharing your records. ## Alternatives and official sources - [OpenRouter](https://openrouter.ai/docs/guides/routing/provider-selection): Provider routing includes price, throughput, latency, fallback and data-policy controls. - [LiteLLM](https://docs.litellm.ai/docs/routing): Gateway routing, cooldowns, retries, load balancing and fallback strategies. Existing gateways execute production traffic and have operational depth. This planner adds an inspectable scenario calculation, but has no gateway integration or calibrated success estimates. ## Limits Offline planning only. No live requests, model judge, payment, dynamic bandit or production routing. This is an offline scenario planner, not an execution or payment router. Expected figures assume independent failures, fixed all-in attempt costs and early stop after success. Correlated failures invalidate the success estimates. Every allowed sequence uses distinct candidates; budget checks use exact worst-case total cost, not expected cost. Latency is a supplied bound, not an observed guarantee. Only the first 20 feasible sequences are shown; all sequences and rejection reasons are included in the JSON report. ## Input and output Structural schema: https://route.agiscorecard.com/input.schema.json The engine additionally validates ranges, dates, amount formats, uniqueness and cross-field rules. Input JSON and CSV paste are processed locally. No model, account or wallet is needed. Reports can be downloaded as JSON or Markdown and printed locally. Public scenario links never include user records. ## Price and license Current functions are free beta. No paid plan or update SLA is offered. Tool bundle license: https://route.agiscorecard.com/LICENSE.txt Privacy: https://route.agiscorecard.com/privacy.html --- # x402 and ERC-8004 protocol reference — Protocol Ledger Canonical: https://protocol.agiscorecard.com/guide.html Reviewed: 2026-09-19 Author: AGI Scorecard team Version: 1.2.0 Protocol Ledger is a free, dated reference for five payment, agent-identity and token interfaces. Each record preserves its official specification, review date and interpretation limits. Filter the same snapshot in the browser or retrieve it through the JSON API. ## Method Serve a versioned editorial snapshot. Filter by purpose or specification status; preserve source, checked date and unsupported conclusions in every record. ## Workflow 1. Select payment, identity or token interface and your maximum acceptable research age. 2. Read the official source behind each short profile. 3. Use /api/v1/profiles or /openapi.json to integrate the same records; reject stale data in your client. ## Common mistake A current API response can still contain an old research snapshot. Check the original checkedAt and stale fields, not just the request timestamp. ## Worked scenarios ### Explore the five profiles Inspect the scope, version and official source behind each record. Fictional inputs: https://protocol.agiscorecard.com/examples/all.json Run: https://protocol.agiscorecard.com/?scenario=all#workbench - Profiles: 5 - Checked at: 2026-09-19 - Freshness: Within your age limit ### Payment integration Find the dated x402 payment profile. Fictional inputs: https://protocol.agiscorecard.com/examples/payments.json Run: https://protocol.agiscorecard.com/?scenario=payments#workbench - Profiles: 1 - Checked at: 2026-09-19 - Freshness: Within your age limit ### Check an old snapshot Move the review date forward and inspect the stale state. Fictional inputs: https://protocol.agiscorecard.com/examples/stale.json Run: https://protocol.agiscorecard.com/?scenario=stale#workbench - Profiles: 5 - Checked at: 2026-09-19 - Freshness: Review overdue ## Questions ### Does an ERC-8004 registration prove that an agent is trustworthy? No. A registry can expose identity and feedback signals without proving capabilities, reviewer independence or future performance. Check the official specification and task-specific evidence before relying on an agent. ### Is Protocol Ledger free, and do I need a wallet? All current functions are free beta. No account, wallet connection, subscription or model API key is needed. Five initial profiles; no market prices, exhaustive schema coverage, real-time protocol monitoring or paid endpoint. ### Can I use my own records and keep them private? Yes. Enter records, import JSON or paste CSV into record groups. Inputs and comparison snapshots stay in this browser tab. Share-example links contain only a public scenario name. Review downloaded reports before sharing your records. ## Alternatives and official sources - [The Graph](https://thegraph.com/docs/en/): Blockchain indexing and query infrastructure with Subgraphs and Substreams. - [Dune](https://docs.dune.com/api-reference/overview/introduction): APIs for querying and retrieving blockchain analytics. Use The Graph or Dune for chain data and custom analytics. This feed is deliberately about reviewed protocol meanings, not a replacement for indexing or live chain queries. ## Limits Five initial profiles; no market prices, exhaustive schema coverage, real-time protocol monitoring or paid endpoint. These are editorial summaries and review checklists, not exhaustive protocol schemas or conformance certificates. Read the linked specification before implementing. The dataset is a release snapshot. The API reports its original checkedAt and current age; it does not silently refresh the research date. Free access is available; no paid feed is on sale. ## Input and output Structural schema: https://protocol.agiscorecard.com/input.schema.json The engine additionally validates ranges, dates, amount formats, uniqueness and cross-field rules. Input JSON and CSV paste are processed locally. No model, account or wallet is needed. Reports can be downloaded as JSON or Markdown and printed locally. Public scenario links never include user records. ## Price and license Current functions are free beta. No paid plan or update SLA is offered. Tool bundle license: https://protocol.agiscorecard.com/LICENSE.txt Privacy: https://protocol.agiscorecard.com/privacy.html --- # AI data license checklist — Data Permit Canonical: https://permit.agiscorecard.com/guide.html Reviewed: 2026-09-19 Author: AGI Scorecard team Version: 1.2.0 Data Permit compares an intended AI use with your recorded grant conditions: region, expiry, revocation and consent status. It calculates a proposed split of received revenue and keeps incompatible shares unallocated. Matching fields does not establish a legal license. ## Method Check use, region, expiry, revocation and declared consent. Allocate only compatible shares of received revenue; preserve the unallocated remainder. ## Workflow 1. Record the actual grant document and source for each dataset. 2. Specify the intended use and region, with documented consent status. 3. Resolve exceptions with the rights holder; treat the split as a review proposal. ## Common mistake Permission to evaluate a dataset is not automatically permission to train on it. Record the specific intended use and read the original grant. ## Worked scenarios ### One expired grant An incompatible grant leaves revenue unallocated. Fictional inputs: https://permit.agiscorecard.com/examples/expired.json Run: https://permit.agiscorecard.com/?scenario=expired#workbench - Policy matches: 1 - Needs review: 1 - Unallocated revenue: 40 USD ### A grant was revoked A previously matching grant stops receiving a proposed share. Fictional inputs: https://permit.agiscorecard.com/examples/revoked.json Run: https://permit.agiscorecard.com/?scenario=revoked#workbench - Policy matches: 0 - Needs review: 2 - Unallocated revenue: 100 USD ### Use changes to training An evaluation grant does not automatically allow training. Fictional inputs: https://permit.agiscorecard.com/examples/training.json Run: https://permit.agiscorecard.com/?scenario=training#workbench - Policy matches: 0 - Needs review: 2 - Unallocated revenue: 100 USD ## Questions ### What happens to revenue assigned to an expired data grant? In this worksheet it remains unallocated. The tool does not silently redistribute it to other contributors or make a payment. Resolve the actual rights and contract terms before deciding what should happen. ### Is Data Permit free, and do I need a wallet? All current functions are free beta. No account, wallet connection, subscription or model API key is needed. No legal opinion, rights verification, consent collection, access enforcement, token issuance or payment. ### Can I use my own records and keep them private? Yes. Enter records, import JSON or paste CSV into record groups. Inputs and comparison snapshots stay in this browser tab. Share-example links contain only a public scenario name. Review downloaded reports before sharing your records. ## Alternatives and official sources - [Vana](https://docs.vana.org/): Data permissions, identity, files and payment primitives, with SDK and personal-server access controls. - [Ocean Protocol](https://oceanprotocol.com/): Data-token access controls and compute-to-data tooling for AI and data workflows. Vana offers protocol-level data access. This worksheet can review grants from different systems but cannot enforce or establish those grants. A spreadsheet remains a strong substitute. ## Limits No legal opinion, rights verification, consent collection, access enforcement, token issuance or payment. This checks your supplied policy fields; it does not establish copyright ownership, consent validity, lawful processing or a legal license. Consult the actual grant and applicable requirements. Revenue is entered as already received in one currency. Revoked, expired or incompatible grants receive zero in this scenario; their shares stay unallocated, never redistributed automatically. No payment is made. Source URLs and license identifiers are preserved for review, not fetched or authenticated. Expiry dates are inclusive UTC calendar days. ## Input and output Structural schema: https://permit.agiscorecard.com/input.schema.json The engine additionally validates ranges, dates, amount formats, uniqueness and cross-field rules. Input JSON and CSV paste are processed locally. No model, account or wallet is needed. Reports can be downloaded as JSON or Markdown and printed locally. Public scenario links never include user records. ## Price and license Current functions are free beta. No paid plan or update SLA is offered. Tool bundle license: https://permit.agiscorecard.com/LICENSE.txt Privacy: https://permit.agiscorecard.com/privacy.html --- # GPU cost per accepted output — Compute Lens Canonical: https://compute.agiscorecard.com/guide.html Reviewed: 2026-09-19 Author: AGI Scorecard team Version: 1.2.0 Compute Lens compares measured workload runs using total entered compute, setup, storage and egress costs per accepted output. It filters mismatched workload labels, currencies, quality and memory limits. All examples are fictional; no live GPU quotes are supplied. ## Method Total cost = hourly rate × (setup + run seconds) / 3600 + storage + egress. Divide by accepted outputs; filter mismatched workloads, currencies and memory constraints. ## Workflow 1. Run identical fixtures with the same weights, precision and acceptance rule. 2. Record all billed setup/run time and ancillary costs, including failed attempts. 3. Compare eligible runs and investigate any changed workload assumptions. ## Common mistake Using all attempts as the denominator makes failed outputs look productive. A run with no accepted outputs has no estimable cost per accepted output. ## Worked scenarios ### Compare useful outputs Setup and rejected work change the apparent GPU bargain. Fictional inputs: https://compute.agiscorecard.com/examples/accepted.json Run: https://compute.agiscorecard.com/?scenario=accepted#workbench - Comparable runs: 2 - Excluded runs: 0 - Lowest entered cost / accepted: 0.00389474 USD ### No accepted outputs Zero useful output stays unestimable rather than appearing free. Fictional inputs: https://compute.agiscorecard.com/examples/zero.json Run: https://compute.agiscorecard.com/?scenario=zero#workbench - Comparable runs: 1 - Excluded runs: 1 - Lowest entered cost / accepted: 0.00389474 USD ### The model does not fit The cheapest entered run must still satisfy the memory requirement. Fictional inputs: https://compute.agiscorecard.com/examples/memory.json Run: https://compute.agiscorecard.com/?scenario=memory#workbench - Comparable runs: 1 - Excluded runs: 1 - Lowest entered cost / accepted: 0.008125 USD ## Questions ### Why can a cheaper GPU have a higher cost per useful result? Longer setup, slower execution, rejected outputs or data-transfer costs can outweigh the hourly discount. Compare the same workload and acceptance rule, and include all billed time before dividing by accepted outputs. ### Is Compute Lens free, and do I need a wallet? All current functions are free beta. No account, wallet connection, subscription or model API key is needed. No live GPU inventory, automatic benchmarking, reservation, infrastructure management or verified savings. ### Can I use my own records and keep them private? Yes. Enter records, import JSON or paste CSV into record groups. Inputs and comparison snapshots stay in this browser tab. Share-example links contain only a public scenario name. Review downloaded reports before sharing your records. ## Alternatives and official sources - [Akash](https://akash.network/): Decentralized compute marketplace with resource configuration, provider bidding and deployment. - [Runpod](https://www.runpod.io/pricing): GPU cloud offerings with separate compute and storage pricing. Buy from an infrastructure provider when you need compute. This tool helps review the economics of measurements; it cannot supply hardware or prove a workload is representative. ## Limits No live GPU inventory, automatic benchmarking, reservation, infrastructure management or verified savings. These are arithmetic estimates from your entered measurements, rounded to 8 decimals. They are not live provider quotes or independently measured benchmarks. All supplied run and setup time is billed at the entered hourly rate. Include failed runs, cold starts and retries in the measurement. GPU availability, parallelism, taxes, discounts and unentered costs are not inferred. Identical workload/model labels are necessary, not sufficient, for a fair comparison. Check model weights, quantization, region, input set and evaluation rule yourself. ## Input and output Structural schema: https://compute.agiscorecard.com/input.schema.json The engine additionally validates ranges, dates, amount formats, uniqueness and cross-field rules. Input JSON and CSV paste are processed locally. No model, account or wallet is needed. Reports can be downloaded as JSON or Markdown and printed locally. Public scenario links never include user records. ## Price and license Current functions are free beta. No paid plan or update SLA is offered. Tool bundle license: https://compute.agiscorecard.com/LICENSE.txt Privacy: https://compute.agiscorecard.com/privacy.html --- # AI contributor reward calculator — Incentive Lab Canonical: https://incentives.agiscorecard.com/guide.html Reviewed: 2026-09-19 Author: AGI Scorecard team Version: 1.2.0 Incentive Lab separates customer revenue from token subsidy, then allocates a declared reward budget using accepted work and quality weights. Contributor caps and exact budget conservation keep the scenario inspectable. The worksheet does not establish Sybil resistance or distribute tokens. ## Method Use accepted tasks × declared quality as weights. Apply strict per-contributor caps with largest-remainder allocation; leave infeasible budget unallocated. ## Workflow 1. Separate received customer revenue from token support and record operating costs. 2. Enter accepted work with reviewed quality and declared evidence independence. 3. Inspect contribution after rewards and try zero-subsidy or concentrated-contributor scenarios. ## Common mistake A cap applies to a declared contributor ID, not a verified person. Splitting identities can defeat the economic intent unless a separate identity and review process is effective. ## Worked scenarios ### Rewards need a subsidy Compare the balance before and after paying contributors. Fictional inputs: https://incentives.agiscorecard.com/examples/baseline.json Run: https://incentives.agiscorecard.com/?scenario=baseline#workbench - Operating contribution, before rewards: 5 USD - Including declared subsidy: 105 USD - Unallocated reward budget: 0 USD ### Remove the token subsidy Inspect whether customer revenue alone funds the reward plan. Fictional inputs: https://incentives.agiscorecard.com/examples/organic.json Run: https://incentives.agiscorecard.com/?scenario=organic#workbench - Operating contribution, before rewards: 5 USD - Including declared subsidy: 5 USD - Unallocated reward budget: 0 USD ### Tighter contributor caps A cap can leave part of the reward pool undistributed. Fictional inputs: https://incentives.agiscorecard.com/examples/caps.json Run: https://incentives.agiscorecard.com/?scenario=caps#workbench - Operating contribution, before rewards: 5 USD - Including declared subsidy: 105 USD - Unallocated reward budget: 15 USD ## Questions ### Does a positive token-subsidized balance prove customer demand? No. Check the balance after operating costs and rewards without subsidy first. External support can finance an experiment, but it does not show that customers will pay enough to sustain the service. ### Is Incentive Lab free, and do I need a wallet? All current functions are free beta. No account, wallet connection, subscription or model API key is needed. No live subnet data, fraud detection, Bittensor emission replication, staking recommendation or token distribution. ### Can I use my own records and keep them private? Yes. Enter records, import JSON or paste CSV into record groups. Inputs and comparison snapshots stay in this browser tab. Share-example links contain only a public scenario name. Review downloaded reports before sharing your records. ## Alternatives and official sources - [Bittensor](https://www.bittensor.com/docs): Subnets define incentive mechanisms; miners produce commodities and validators evaluate them. - [Gensyn](https://www.gensyn.ai/): Research and products around verifiable AI, reproducible execution and feedback-linked learning. A real network includes consensus, emissions, identity, security and market dynamics. This small simulator is a design worksheet; a transparent spreadsheet can also solve it. ## Limits No live subnet data, fraud detection, Bittensor emission replication, staking recommendation or token distribution. Independent evidence and quality are supplied assumptions, not verified identities or anti-collusion guarantees. This is not a Bittensor emission forecast. Reward score = accepted tasks × declared quality. Values use 6-decimal quality resolution; cap uses 4-decimal percentage resolution. Allocation uses largest remainders at 8-decimal currency precision. Operating contribution excludes reward payouts. Subtract the allocated reward budget to evaluate contribution after rewards; subsidy does not establish customer demand. ## Input and output Structural schema: https://incentives.agiscorecard.com/input.schema.json The engine additionally validates ranges, dates, amount formats, uniqueness and cross-field rules. Input JSON and CSV paste are processed locally. No model, account or wallet is needed. Reports can be downloaded as JSON or Markdown and printed locally. Public scenario links never include user records. ## Price and license Current functions are free beta. No paid plan or update SLA is offered. Tool bundle license: https://incentives.agiscorecard.com/LICENSE.txt Privacy: https://incentives.agiscorecard.com/privacy.html --- # zkML cost calculator — Proof Plan Canonical: https://proof.agiscorecard.com/guide.html Reviewed: 2026-09-19 Author: AGI Scorecard team Version: 1.2.0 Proof Plan estimates proving compute and onchain verification costs from your own measurements. It checks a per-job latency target and preserves model, input and verification-key hashes. It plans an integration; it does not generate or verify a zero-knowledge proof. ## Method Estimate proving compute and one onchain gas verification per job. Compare cost and per-job latency with supplied limits, preserving hashes and verifier version. ## Workflow 1. Measure the intended model using an established prover such as EZKL. 2. Pin model, input and verification-key hashes; record tool version and statement. 3. Review the budget, then verify the actual proof with the established verifier and trusted key. ## Common mistake Gas-only estimates can omit L2 data fees, failed proofs, setup and queues. The displayed total covers the entered model; compare it with actual measured bills. ## Worked scenarios ### Plan 100 proofs Inspect compute, gas, latency and artifact versions together. Fictional inputs: https://proof.agiscorecard.com/examples/baseline.json Run: https://proof.agiscorecard.com/?scenario=baseline#workbench - Estimated total USD: 50.666667 - Per-job latency (s): 12.025 - Budget / latency: Within / Within ### Gas price increases A different gas assumption can break an otherwise feasible budget. Fictional inputs: https://proof.agiscorecard.com/examples/gas.json Run: https://proof.agiscorecard.com/?scenario=gas#workbench - Estimated total USD: 150.666667 - Per-job latency (s): 12.025 - Budget / latency: Over / Within ### Proving takes longer Longer proving affects compute cost and the per-job latency target. Fictional inputs: https://proof.agiscorecard.com/examples/latency.json Run: https://proof.agiscorecard.com/?scenario=latency#workbench - Estimated total USD: 51.666667 - Per-job latency (s): 30.025 - Budget / latency: Within / Over ## Questions ### Does a matching file hash verify a zkML proof? No. A hash helps identify bytes. Proof verification requires an appropriate verifier, verification key and statement. Use established proving tools and check their trust assumptions. ### Is Proof Plan free, and do I need a wallet? All current functions are free beta. No account, wallet connection, subscription or model API key is needed. No ZK proof generation or cryptographic verification. File hashing verifies bytes only; it is not proof of model correctness. ### Can I use my own records and keep them private? Yes. Enter records, import JSON or paste CSV into record groups. Inputs and comparison snapshots stay in this browser tab. Share-example links contain only a public scenario name. Review downloaded reports before sharing your records. ## Alternatives and official sources - [EZKL](https://docs.ezkl.xyz/): Converts ONNX model computations into circuits and provides proof generation and verification. - [snarkjs](https://github.com/iden3/snarkjs): JavaScript/WASM tools for established SNARK proving and verification workflows. Use a real prover/verifier for cryptographic assurance. This site addresses planning and artifact review only; it cannot replace EZKL, snarkjs or a security review. ## Limits No ZK proof generation or cryptographic verification. File hashing verifies bytes only; it is not proof of model correctness. No zero-knowledge proof is generated or cryptographically verified here. A hash records bytes, not model correctness, ownership or trusted setup. Use EZKL/snarkjs and a trusted verification key for proof verification. Cost assumes one onchain verification per job. L2 data fees, calldata, storage, setup, failed proofs and verifier infrastructure are excluded unless included in your measurements. USD/native exchange rate is supplied, not live. Latency is per job with no queue; throughput, concurrent capacity and SLA are not certified. Artifact hashes are declared; the optional local file fingerprint can help you check a file yourself. ## Input and output Structural schema: https://proof.agiscorecard.com/input.schema.json The engine additionally validates ranges, dates, amount formats, uniqueness and cross-field rules. Input JSON and CSV paste are processed locally. No model, account or wallet is needed. Reports can be downloaded as JSON or Markdown and printed locally. Public scenario links never include user records. ## Price and license Current functions are free beta. No paid plan or update SLA is offered. Tool bundle license: https://proof.agiscorecard.com/LICENSE.txt Privacy: https://proof.agiscorecard.com/privacy.html --- # ERC-20 approval decoder — Call Lens Canonical: https://calls.agiscorecard.com/guide.html Reviewed: 2026-09-19 Author: AGI Scorecard team Version: 1.2.0 Call Lens decodes supported token-call shapes locally and compares the recipient, spender and atomic amount with your expectations. It distinguishes ERC-20 allowances from ERC-721 token IDs using the declared standard. It never connects a wallet or evaluates contract safety. ## Method Decode only exact two-word transfer, approve and setApprovalForAll ABI shapes. Compare supplied recipient/spender and limit; identify broad approval and attached native value. ## Workflow 1. Copy a prepared call from a source you already control. Do not paste private keys or seed phrases. 2. Enter the expected destination and atomic-unit limit from your intended action. 3. Review differences and use your trusted wallet/simulator for the actual decision. ## Common mistake A correctly decoded call can still target a malicious contract. No flags means only that the supplied checks found no mismatch, not that signing is safe. ## Worked scenarios ### Unlimited ERC-20 approval Compare maximum uint256 allowance with an entered limit. Fictional inputs: https://calls.agiscorecard.com/examples/unlimited.json Run: https://calls.agiscorecard.com/?scenario=unlimited#workbench - Declared method: approve(address,uint256) - Policy flags: 2 - Security verdict: Not assessed ### A bounded approval Use an explicit allowance while retaining the unassessed safety state. Fictional inputs: https://calls.agiscorecard.com/examples/limited.json Run: https://calls.agiscorecard.com/?scenario=limited#workbench - Declared method: approve(address,uint256) - Policy flags: 0 - Security verdict: Not assessed ### The same selector, an NFT Interpret the integer as token ID 42 under declared ERC-721. Fictional inputs: https://calls.agiscorecard.com/examples/nft.json Run: https://calls.agiscorecard.com/?scenario=nft#workbench - Declared method: approve(address,uint256) - Policy flags: 0 - Security verdict: Not assessed ## Questions ### Why is approve(address,uint256) ambiguous? ERC-20 and ERC-721 share that selector but use the integer differently: a fungible-token allowance versus a token ID. The declared standard is necessary context and must be verified against the actual contract. ### Is Call Lens free, and do I need a wallet? All current functions are free beta. No account, wallet connection, subscription or model API key is needed. No chain simulation, malicious-contract detection, token identity lookup, balance inspection or safety verdict. ### Can I use my own records and keep them private? Yes. Enter records, import JSON or paste CSV into record groups. Inputs and comparison snapshots stay in this browser tab. Share-example links contain only a public scenario name. Review downloaded reports before sharing your records. ## Alternatives and official sources - [Blockaid](https://blockaid.io/): Onchain security, transaction protection, monitoring and threat intelligence. - [Tenderly](https://docs.tenderly.co/simulations/overview): Transaction simulation with decoded traces, gas estimates and asset changes. - [ERC-20 specification](https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-20): Defines fungible-token transfers and allowances; implementation behavior still matters. A real security product or simulator has chain context this decoder lacks. A known selector and an empty flag list cannot show that a contract is safe. ## Limits No chain simulation, malicious-contract detection, token identity lookup, balance inspection or safety verdict. A selector can collide and a contract can implement unexpected behavior. This is not transaction simulation, scam detection, contract auditing or permission to sign. No token decimals, token symbol, ownership, current allowance or chain state are inferred. An absence of flags means only that these supplied policy checks found no mismatch. This tool never connects a wallet, requests a signature, broadcasts a transaction or fetches the pasted contract. ## Input and output Structural schema: https://calls.agiscorecard.com/input.schema.json The engine additionally validates ranges, dates, amount formats, uniqueness and cross-field rules. Input JSON and CSV paste are processed locally. No model, account or wallet is needed. Reports can be downloaded as JSON or Markdown and printed locally. Public scenario links never include user records. ## Price and license Current functions are free beta. No paid plan or update SLA is offered. Tool bundle license: https://calls.agiscorecard.com/LICENSE.txt Privacy: https://calls.agiscorecard.com/privacy.html --- # RWA disclosure comparison — RWA Notes Canonical: https://disclosures.agiscorecard.com/guide.html Reviewed: 2026-09-19 Author: AGI Scorecard team Version: 1.2.0 RWA Notes compares two sets of supplied asset disclosure fields while retaining units, dates and source references. It flags missing values and incompatible comparisons. It does not verify reserves, issuer solvency or redemption rights. ## Method Match asset + field. Show old and new values, dates and source references. Calculate a numeric delta only when units and date checks permit it. ## Workflow 1. Collect two official disclosures and record the same economic definitions. 2. Enter values exactly with their units, disclosure dates and source URLs. 3. Investigate changes in the original documents; a missing field is not a zero. ## Common mistake A missing redemption field is not a zero-day redemption promise. Preserve the missing state and inspect the original source. ## Worked scenarios ### A field disappears Keep an absent redemption field visible in the change log. Fictional inputs: https://disclosures.agiscorecard.com/examples/missing.json Run: https://disclosures.agiscorecard.com/?scenario=missing#workbench - Fields reviewed: 2 - Changed / missing: 2 - Freshness / date flags: 0 ### The currency changes A unit change blocks a misleading numeric growth figure. Fictional inputs: https://disclosures.agiscorecard.com/examples/units.json Run: https://disclosures.agiscorecard.com/?scenario=units#workbench - Fields reviewed: 2 - Changed / missing: 2 - Freshness / date flags: 0 ### The new disclosure is stale A newer-looking number may still fail the review-date check. Fictional inputs: https://disclosures.agiscorecard.com/examples/old.json Run: https://disclosures.agiscorecard.com/?scenario=old#workbench - Fields reviewed: 2 - Changed / missing: 2 - Freshness / date flags: 1 ## Questions ### Can I compare two disclosed asset values directly? Check that the asset, economic definition, currency, unit and reporting dates are comparable. A market-cap number and a total-asset-value number do not become comparable merely because both are denominated in USD. ### Is RWA Notes free, and do I need a wallet? All current functions are free beta. No account, wallet connection, subscription or model API key is needed. No live asset feed, reserve audit, redemption verification, credit rating or investment recommendation. ### Can I use my own records and keep them private? Yes. Enter records, import JSON or paste CSV into record groups. Inputs and comparison snapshots stay in this browser tab. Share-example links contain only a public scenario name. Review downloaded reports before sharing your records. ## Alternatives and official sources - [RWA.xyz](https://docs.rwa.xyz/home): Tokenized-asset data, methodology, classifications and API resources. - [Dune](https://docs.dune.com/api-reference/overview/introduction): Custom blockchain analytics and query-result access. Use a data platform for market coverage and continuous collection. This tool compares your supplied disclosures and cannot authenticate an issuer or its reserve claims. ## Limits No live asset feed, reserve audit, redemption verification, credit rating or investment recommendation. Values and URLs come from your records and are not authenticated. The tool does not verify reserves, ownership, redemption rights, custody or issuer solvency. Numeric deltas require identical units and a current, nonfuture, nonreversed new disclosure date. Field labels must represent the same economic definition. Market capitalization and total asset value are not interchangeable. This is a document comparison workflow, not a token recommendation or a credit/risk rating. Inspect the cited original disclosures. ## Input and output Structural schema: https://disclosures.agiscorecard.com/input.schema.json The engine additionally validates ranges, dates, amount formats, uniqueness and cross-field rules. Input JSON and CSV paste are processed locally. No model, account or wallet is needed. Reports can be downloaded as JSON or Markdown and printed locally. Public scenario links never include user records. ## Price and license Current functions are free beta. No paid plan or update SLA is offered. Tool bundle license: https://disclosures.agiscorecard.com/LICENSE.txt Privacy: https://disclosures.agiscorecard.com/privacy.html ## MCP integration Endpoint: https://web3.agiscorecard.com/mcp Transport: Streamable HTTP; no authentication. Setup and privacy: https://web3.agiscorecard.com/for-agents.html Search and fetch provide public citation references. Remote calculator inputs are sent to the server, unlike the local browser worksheet. Application code does not persist MCP arguments or results. Cite the public methodology without claiming it verifies user inputs.