Agent Identifiers for AI Ecosystems

• Agent identifiers are formal mechanisms that use cryptographic proofs and metadata to uniquely identify and authenticate autonomous AI agents.
• They support accountability, provenance tracking, and seamless interoperability across both centralized and decentralized system architectures.
• They underpin secure economic transactions, privacy controls, and compliance measures essential for trustworthy multi-agent AI ecosystems.

Agent identifiers are formal mechanisms and associated metadata that uniquely distinguish, attest to, and enable the governance of autonomous AI agents in computational and networked environments. Their function spans secure communication, provenance, accountability, interoperability, privacy, and economic transactions. Modern approaches to agent identifiers draw from fields such as decentralized identity, public key infrastructure, cryptographic attestation, and behavioral watermarking, and are central to the scaling, security, and trustworthiness of agentic AI ecosystems.

1. Objectives and Functions of Agent Identifiers

Agent identifiers fundamentally serve to distinguish individual agents or agent instances, support accountability, and enable trusted interactions, both in human-agent and agent-agent settings. Their key technical objectives are:

• Unique identification: Establishing a globally unique, collision-resistant ID for each agent or agent instance, often through decentralized identifiers (DIDs) or cryptographically generated addresses (Ehtesham et al., 4 May 2025, Zou et al., 2 Aug 2025, Chang et al., 18 Jul 2025, Dinh-Tuan et al., 6 Sep 2025).
• Authentication and attestation: Binding an agent’s operational context (software hash, execution environment, provisioning institution) to the identifier via cryptographic proofs, such as digital signatures or attestations from trusted modules or authorities (Barros, 17 Apr 2025, Huang et al., 15 May 2025).
• Accountability and provenance: Providing traceability in complex workflows (for example, via explicit linking of agent actions, decisions, and tool use) and forming a core part of audit trails or provenance frameworks (Souza et al., 4 Aug 2025).
• Interoperability and discovery: Enabling secure discovery and capability querying across heterogeneous environments using standardized schemas (registry entries, agent cards, AgentFacts, or meta-registries) (Ehtesham et al., 4 May 2025, Singh et al., 5 Aug 2025, Huang et al., 15 May 2025, Grogan, 11 Jun 2025).
• Economic and transactional functions: In decentralized agent economies, identifiers are used for on-chain authentication, permissions, reputation, and micropayment flows (Vaziry et al., 24 Jul 2025).

The scope of an agent identifier extends beyond a static name; for many applications, it includes a metadata envelope—sometimes termed an “agent card” or “agent facts”—with operational, credential, and compliance attributes.

2. Technical Mechanisms: From Centralized to Decentralized Identifiers

Centralized Schemes

Centralized agent identifiers are typically assigned through managed registries (e.g., the MCP “mcp.json” metaregistry), validated using conventional mechanisms such as OAuth authentication, DNS-based domain proof, or X.509 certificate issuance (Singh et al., 5 Aug 2025, Huang et al., 15 May 2025). These approaches provide control and verifiable enroLLMent but introduce potential bottlenecks and single points of failure.

Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs)

DIDs represent a W3C-endorsed, fully decentralized approach to agent identification (Dinh-Tuan et al., 6 Sep 2025, Ehtesham et al., 4 May 2025, Chang et al., 18 Jul 2025). Each agent creates a unique DID, referenced as

$$\text{did:wba}:\langle\text{unique-agent-string}\rangle$$

where “wba” (Web-Based Agent) exemplifies a DID method optimized for web-based agent exchange (Chang et al., 18 Jul 2025).

• DID document: Resides in a verifiable data registry (e.g., a distributed ledger). Contains public keys, authentication endpoints, and service metadata.
• Cryptographic binding: All authentication, signing, and encryption operations use keys bound to the DID, providing both entity authentication and message integrity. For example:
  • Message signing: $S = \text{Sign}(d, M)$
  • Verification: $\text{Verify}(PK, M, S) = \text{true}$
  • Encrypted transport: $C = \text{Enc}(PK_B, M)$, $M = \text{Dec}(SK_B, C)$

DID-based identity is foundational for cross-domain trust, zero-trust architectures, multi-agent ecosystems, and secure service-oriented architectures (Dinh-Tuan et al., 6 Sep 2025, Huang et al., 25 May 2025).

On-chain and Ledger-Anchored Identities

In decentralized agent marketplaces and multi-agent economies, agent identifiers are anchored as smart contracts or on-chain records (e.g., AgentCards as contracts on Ethereum) (Vaziry et al., 24 Jul 2025, Zou et al., 2 Aug 2025). The smart contract schema is defined by cryptographically hashed attributes, e.g.:

$$\text{AgentID} = H(\text{name} \Vert \text{url} \Vert \text{capabilities} \dots)$$

This guarantees immutability, enables on-chain reputation systems, and supports machine-verifiable economic interactions via x402 micropayment flows (HTTP 402 status signaling) (Vaziry et al., 24 Jul 2025).

3. Agent Identifier Metadata Structures: Agent Cards, AgentFacts, and Registries

Agent Cards (A2A Protocol)

Agent Cards are compact, self-descriptive JSON objects containing:

• Endpoint URL(s)
• Capability enumeration
• Authentication methods (Bearer tokens, API keys, DIDs)
• Supported protocols and semantic version (Ehtesham et al., 4 May 2025, Singh et al., 5 Aug 2025)

They are discoverable via well-known URIs or decentralized catalogs and may be extended to support cryptographic signatures or DID references.

AgentFacts (NANDA Index)

AgentFacts is a cryptographically verifiable, privacy-preserving, and extensible metadata schema incorporating:

• Identity fields (DID, UUID, or URI)
• Capabilities, compliance, performance, and supply chain metadata
• Multi-authority signatures: $S_i = \text{Sign}(\text{sk}_i, M_i)$
• Dynamic permission management fields (scopes, TTLs, cryptographic audit trails) (Grogan, 11 Jun 2025)

AgentFacts records are discoverable and verifiable via a layered architecture (lean index, AgentFacts, and dynamic resolution).

Registries: Centralized and Decentralized

Multiple registry architectures exist to allow lookup, capability querying, and protocol negotiation:

• MCP metaregistry: Centralized, schema-driven, authenticated by domain and GitHub proof (Singh et al., 5 Aug 2025)
• ANS (Agent Name Service): Distributed, protocol-agnostic, PKI-based, with DNS-style naming conventions for resolvability and version negotiation (Huang et al., 15 May 2025)
• Layered/federated architectures: Enable massive scaling (to trillions of agents) by separating static records from dynamic, regularly refreshed metadata (Singh et al., 5 Aug 2025)

4. Security, Authentication, and Access Control Models

Agent identifiers underpin multiple facets of secure operations:

• Authentication: Agents prove possession of private keys (cryptographic signature or challenge-response flows) or trusted hardware credentials (e.g., eSIM). Mutual authentication is routinely required for agent-agent and agent-service interactions (Barros, 17 Apr 2025, Ehtesham et al., 4 May 2025).
• Authorization and capabilities: Verifiable Credentials (VCs) detail an agent’s authorized behavioral scope, tool access, and compliance posture. Fine-grained controls are implemented through policy decision/enforcement points and context-aware evaluation (for example, via the Open Policy Agent/REGO policies) (Huang et al., 25 May 2025).
• Privacy reinforcement: Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs) allow agents to prove possession of attributes without disclosing full credential details:

$$\text{Verify}(\text{ZKP}(\text{AgentVC}), \text{PolicyConstraint}) = \text{True}$$

• Tamper-proof auditability: In blockchain-anchored systems, hashes of agent state or actions are committed on-chain, supporting non-repudiation and immutable provenance (Zou et al., 2 Aug 2025).

5. Traceability, Provenance, and Accountability

Agent identifiers are essential for:

• End-to-end provenance: Provenance models such as PROV-AGENT record agent identifiers, tool usage, prompts, decisions, and environmental context. Recorded relationships (e.g., wasInformedBy, used, generatedBy) enable automated queries for tracing decisions to origins and analyzing propagation of errors in agentic workflows (Souza et al., 4 Aug 2025).
• Reliability analysis: Persistent, unique identifiers facilitate root cause analysis and post-hoc attribution in complex, cross-facility or federated workflows.
• Transparency and governance: Agent identifier frameworks, coupled with robust metadata schemas and public registries, support regulatory compliance, audit trails, and public accountability (Zanbouri et al., 22 Jan 2025, Grogan, 11 Jun 2025).

6. Interoperability Protocols and Discovery Mechanisms

Modern interoperability standards require agent identifiers to be usable across multiple protocols and organizational boundaries:

• Protocol adapter layers: Registries such as ANS integrate protocol adapters (A2A, MCP, ACP, etc.) to provide endpoint normalization and metadata mapping, ensuring cross-protocol compatibility (Huang et al., 15 May 2025).
• Naming conventions: DNS-inspired naming structures (e.g.,

$$\text{Protocol}://\text{AgentID}.\text{agentCapability}.\text{Provider}.v\text{Version}.\text{Extension}$$

) facilitate capability-aware and collision-resistant resolution.

• Federated directories: Decentralized discovery allows agents to self-register and update during their operational lifecycle, supporting dynamic environments and multi-stakeholder governance (Singh et al., 5 Aug 2025).
• Ledger and blockchain: On-chain discovery of AgentCards and cryptographic verification of record authenticity obviate reliance on centralized authorities (Vaziry et al., 24 Jul 2025, Zou et al., 2 Aug 2025).

7. Privacy, Scalability, and Governance Challenges

Agent identifiers raise significant tensions between transparency, privacy, and concentration of power:

• Privacy risks: Detailed agent cards and rich metadata may expose sensitive operational and user-associated data. Use of cryptographic techniques for selective disclosure and privacy-preserving discovery is central to modern designs (Chan et al., 23 Jan 2024, Huang et al., 25 May 2025).
• Scalability: Systems must support billions or trillions of agents, necessitating decentralized, federated, and highly cacheable architectures. TTL-based, versioned metadata layering is a common approach (Grogan, 11 Jun 2025, Singh et al., 5 Aug 2025).
• Concentration of power: The enforcement of identifier standards—whether via cloud providers, telcos, or registry authorities—risks reinforcing centralization unless offset by decentralized governance and open protocols (Chan et al., 23 Jan 2024, Barros, 17 Apr 2025).
• Standardization: Ongoing work is required to extend frameworks (e.g., GSMA/3GPP for mobile agents) and develop open-source, vendor-agnostic registries and certification schemes (Barros, 17 Apr 2025, Huang et al., 15 May 2025).

---

Agent identifiers have evolved from simple labels to cryptographically secure, metadata-enriched constructs that support the full lifecycle of agent governance—from discovery and authentication, through provenance and economic transactions, to dynamic privacy and accountability controls. Their implementation is central to the design and trustworthy operation of modern multi-agent AI and networked systems.