pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2306.05301 · v2 · submitted 2023-06-08 · 💻 cs.CL

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

ToolAlpaca: Generalized Tool Learning for Language Models with 3000 Simulated Cases

Qiaoyu Tang , Ziliang Deng , Hongyu Lin , Xianpei Han , Qiao Liang , Boxi Cao , Le Sun
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 22:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CL
keywords tool learninglanguage modelssimulated corpusgeneralized tool usecompact modelsmulti-agent simulationAPI invocation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Compact language models can learn to use new real-world tools by training on simulated multi-agent interactions.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

ToolAlpaca shows that 7B and 13B language models can develop generalized tool-use abilities without tool-specific training. The method creates thousands of diverse examples through automatic multi-agent simulation across hundreds of real APIs. If correct, this means tool-augmented capabilities no longer depend on the scale of the largest models. A sympathetic reader would see this as a route to practical tool use in smaller, more deployable systems.

Core claim

ToolAlpaca builds a corpus of 3938 tool-use instances from more than 400 real-world APIs in 50 categories via a multi-agent simulation environment, then fine-tunes compact models on this corpus so they can utilize previously unseen tools at performance levels comparable to GPT-3.5.

What carries the argument

The multi-agent simulation environment that automatically produces a diversified corpus of tool-use instances without human annotation.

If this is right

  • Compact models gain the ability to invoke new APIs without receiving per-tool supervision or examples.
  • Generalized tool-use capability becomes feasible on models far smaller than GPT-3.5 or GPT-4.
  • The need for large-scale human-labeled tool-use data is reduced by relying on automatic simulation.
  • Tool learning can be applied to a broad range of APIs spanning many categories after one training run.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same simulation approach could be adapted to generate training data for other agentic behaviors beyond API calling.
  • If the gap between simulated and real distributions narrows further, on-device models might acquire tool use without cloud-scale resources.
  • The method invites direct tests on whether performance holds when APIs change their interfaces or documentation after training.

Load-bearing premise

The simulated interactions create training data whose distribution is close enough to real user interactions with APIs that the fine-tuned models generalize to unseen tools.

What would settle it

Measure success rates of the fine-tuned 7B and 13B models on a fresh set of real APIs never seen in the simulation and compare those rates directly to GPT-3.5 on the same tasks.

read the original abstract

Enabling large language models to utilize real-world tools effectively is crucial for achieving embodied intelligence. Existing approaches to tool learning have either primarily relied on extremely large language models, such as GPT-4, to attain generalized tool-use abilities in a zero-shot manner, or utilized supervised learning to train limited scopes of tools on compact models. However, it remains uncertain whether smaller language models can achieve generalized tool-use abilities without tool-specific training. To address this question, this paper introduces ToolAlpaca, a novel framework designed to automatically generate a diverse tool-use corpus and learn generalized tool-use abilities on compact language models with minimal human intervention. Specifically, ToolAlpaca first automatically creates a highly diversified tool-use corpus by building a multi-agent simulation environment. The corpus contains 3938 tool-use instances from more than 400 real-world tool APIs spanning 50 distinct categories. Subsequently, the constructed corpus is employed to fine-tune compact language models, resulting in two models, namely ToolAlpaca-7B and ToolAlpaca-13B, respectively. Finally, we evaluate the ability of these models to utilize previously unseen tools without specific training. Experimental results demonstrate that ToolAlpaca achieves effective generalized tool-use capabilities comparable to those of extremely large language models like GPT-3.5, demonstrating that learning generalized tool-use ability is feasible for compact language models.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces ToolAlpaca, a framework that builds a multi-agent simulation environment to automatically generate a corpus of 3938 tool-use instances drawn from more than 400 real-world APIs across 50 categories. Compact models (ToolAlpaca-7B and ToolAlpaca-13B) are fine-tuned on this corpus and then evaluated on their ability to utilize previously unseen tools without tool-specific training, with the central claim that the resulting performance is comparable to that of GPT-3.5.

Significance. If the evaluation protocol demonstrates genuine transfer to live, previously unseen real-world APIs (including realistic response formats, errors, and rate limits), the result would be significant: it would show that generalized tool-use capabilities can be acquired by compact models via simulation-based supervision, thereby lowering the barrier to tool-augmented systems without requiring per-tool data or extremely large base models.

major comments (3)
  1. [Evaluation] Evaluation section: the abstract asserts performance 'comparable to those of extremely large language models like GPT-3.5' yet supplies no quantitative metrics (success rate, exact-match accuracy, error-handling scores), no baseline comparisons (zero-shot GPT-3.5, GPT-4, or prior tool-learning methods), and no description of how comparability was measured. This absence prevents assessment of whether the generalization claim is supported.
  2. [Method and Experiments] Method and Experiments sections: the central assumption that training on the multi-agent simulator transfers to real tool use is load-bearing, but the manuscript does not state whether the held-out test cases execute actual live API calls (with authentication, rate limits, and real response schemas) or remain inside the same simulator. If the latter, the reported generalization is only in-distribution robustness within the synthetic environment rather than out-of-distribution transfer to live tools.
  3. [Data Generation] Data-generation pipeline: the claim that the 3938 instances span 'more than 400 real-world tool APIs' spanning 50 categories is central to diversity, yet no breakdown by category, no statistics on API complexity or error-condition coverage, and no validation that the simulated responses match real API behavior are provided. Without these, the fidelity of the training distribution to real tool use cannot be verified.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Title and Abstract] Title states '3000 Simulated Cases' while the abstract reports 3938 instances; this numerical inconsistency should be reconciled.
  2. [Introduction] The abstract and introduction should include at least one concrete example of a tool API, its input/output schema, and a sample multi-turn interaction to illustrate the simulation process.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

Thank you for your constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment below with clarifications and proposed revisions to improve the paper's transparency and rigor.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Evaluation] Evaluation section: the abstract asserts performance 'comparable to those of extremely large language models like GPT-3.5' yet supplies no quantitative metrics (success rate, exact-match accuracy, error-handling scores), no baseline comparisons (zero-shot GPT-3.5, GPT-4, or prior tool-learning methods), and no description of how comparability was measured. This absence prevents assessment of whether the generalization claim is supported.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would benefit from explicit quantitative details. The Experiments section reports success rates for ToolAlpaca-7B and ToolAlpaca-13B on held-out tools along with comparisons to GPT-3.5. We will revise the abstract to include key metrics and baseline comparisons, and expand the evaluation protocol description in the main text. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Method and Experiments] Method and Experiments sections: the central assumption that training on the multi-agent simulator transfers to real tool use is load-bearing, but the manuscript does not state whether the held-out test cases execute actual live API calls (with authentication, rate limits, and real response schemas) or remain inside the same simulator. If the latter, the reported generalization is only in-distribution robustness within the synthetic environment rather than out-of-distribution transfer to live tools.

    Authors: The held-out evaluation is conducted inside the simulation environment to ensure controlled, reproducible assessment of generalization to unseen APIs. The simulator replicates real API schemas, response formats, and error conditions. We will explicitly state this scope in the revised Method and Experiments sections and add a discussion of limitations regarding live API transfer. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Data Generation] Data-generation pipeline: the claim that the 3938 instances span 'more than 400 real-world tool APIs' spanning 50 categories is central to diversity, yet no breakdown by category, no statistics on API complexity or error-condition coverage, and no validation that the simulated responses match real API behavior are provided. Without these, the fidelity of the training distribution to real tool use cannot be verified.

    Authors: We will add a category breakdown table, statistics on API complexity and error coverage, and details on how simulated responses are validated against real API documentation. These will appear in the revised Data Generation section or an appendix. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical pipeline is self-contained

full rationale

The paper presents an empirical framework that generates a simulated tool-use corpus from real-world APIs via multi-agent interaction, fine-tunes compact models on the resulting 3938 instances, and reports performance on held-out tools. No equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-citations are invoked as load-bearing premises that reduce the central claim to its own inputs by construction. The generalization result rests on experimental comparison rather than definitional equivalence or imported uniqueness theorems. This is the normal case of an independent empirical study whose validity can be assessed against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on the domain assumption that simulated tool interactions sufficiently match real usage distributions; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced beyond standard fine-tuning.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Multi-agent simulation of tool calls produces training data whose statistical properties transfer to real-world unseen APIs
    Invoked in the description of corpus creation and generalization evaluation

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5563 in / 1249 out tokens · 75951 ms · 2026-05-15T22:59:52.482884+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith.Foundation.DAlembert.Inevitability bilinear_family_forced unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    ToolAlpaca first automatically creates a highly diversified tool-use corpus by building a multi-agent simulation environment. The corpus contains 3938 tool-use instances from more than 400 real-world tool APIs spanning 50 distinct categories.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 24 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Agent-ValueBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating Agent Values

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    Agent-ValueBench is the first dedicated benchmark for agent values, showing they diverge from LLM values, form a homogeneous 'Value Tide' across models, and bend under harnesses and skill steering.

  2. Revisable by Design: A Theory of Streaming LLM Agent Execution

    cs.LG 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    LLM agents achieve greater flexibility during execution by classifying actions via a reversibility taxonomy and using an Earliest-Conflict Rollback algorithm that matches full-restart quality while wasting far less co...

  3. AgentDojo: A Dynamic Environment to Evaluate Prompt Injection Attacks and Defenses for LLM Agents

    cs.CR 2024-06 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    AgentDojo introduces an extensible evaluation framework populated with realistic agent tasks and security test cases to measure prompt injection robustness in tool-using LLM agents.

  4. API-Bank: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Tool-Augmented LLMs

    cs.CL 2023-04 conditional novelty 8.0

    API-Bank is a new benchmark and training dataset for tool-augmented LLMs that shows fine-tuned models can approach GPT-3.5 tool-use effectiveness.

  5. Multi-Rollout On-Policy Distillation via Peer Successes and Failures

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    MOPD improves on-policy distillation for LLMs by using peer successes for positive patterns and failures for negative examples to create more informative teacher signals.

  6. From Generic Correlation to Input-Specific Credit in On-Policy Self Distillation

    cs.LG 2026-05 conditional novelty 7.0

    Self-distillation token rewards measure input-response-feedback pointwise mutual information, and CREDIT extracts the input-specific component with contrastive baselines to improve LLM reasoning performance.

  7. Evaluating Tool Cloning in Agentic-AI Ecosystems

    cs.SE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Tool cloning is pervasive in agentic AI ecosystems, with 60% of high-Jaccard and 85% of high-ssdeep similar pairs verified as true clones in a study of over 8,800 repositories.

  8. Asymmetric On-Policy Distillation: Bridging Exploitation and Imitation at the Token Level

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    AOPD modifies on-policy distillation by using localized divergence minimization for non-positive advantages instead of negative reinforcement, yielding average gains of 4.09/8.34 over standard OPD on math reasoning be...

  9. Controllable and Verifiable Tool-Use Data Synthesis for Agentic Reinforcement Learning

    cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    COVERT generates verifiable synthetic tool-use environments for RL by validated trajectory synthesis and oracle-preserving augmentations, improving tool-use accuracy on BFCL v3 and ACEBench while remaining complementa...

  10. Democratizing Tool Learning with Environments Fully Simulated by a Free 8B Language Model

    cs.LG 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    TRUSTEE uses an 8B LM to simulate complete dynamic environments for RL-based tool learning and outperforms baselines that require extra external resources.

  11. TInR: Exploring Tool-Internalized Reasoning in Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    TInR-U internalizes tool knowledge into LLMs via bidirectional alignment, supervised fine-tuning, and reinforcement learning, outperforming standard tool-integrated reasoning in both in-domain and out-of-domain evaluations.

  12. Querying Structured Data Through Natural Language Using Language Models

    cs.CL 2026-04 conditional novelty 6.0

    Fine-tuning an 8B LLM with synthetic data enables accurate natural language querying of structured datasets like accessibility services in Spain, generalizing to new locations.

  13. ATBench: A Diverse and Realistic Agent Trajectory Benchmark for Safety Evaluation and Diagnosis

    cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    ATBench supplies 1,000 trajectories (503 safe, 497 unsafe) organized by risk source, failure mode, and harm to evaluate long-horizon safety in LLM-based agents.

  14. ATBench: A Diverse and Realistic Agent Trajectory Benchmark for Safety Evaluation and Diagnosis

    cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    ATBench is a new trajectory-level benchmark with 1,000 diverse and realistic scenarios for assessing safety in LLM agents.

  15. Training LLMs for Multi-Step Tool Orchestration with Constrained Data Synthesis and Graduated Rewards

    cs.LG 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A constrained-synthesis RL method with graduated rewards for atomic validity and orchestration consistency improves LLM turn accuracy on multi-step tool benchmarks and transfers to new API sets.

  16. Benchmarking LLM Tool-Use in the Wild

    cs.HC 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    WildToolBench shows no LLM exceeds 15 percent accuracy on tool-use tasks that reflect real user behaviors like compositional orchestration, implicit intents across turns, and mixed instructions.

  17. AgentXRay: White-Boxing Agentic Systems via Workflow Reconstruction

    cs.AI 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    AgentXRay formulates workflow reconstruction as combinatorial optimization and uses Monte Carlo Tree Search with Red-Black Pruning to approximate black-box agent behaviors via output-based proxy metrics.

  18. Memory in the Age of AI Agents

    cs.CL 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    The paper maps agent memory research via three forms (token-level, parametric, latent), three functions (factual, experiential, working), and dynamics of formation/evolution/retrieval, plus benchmarks and future directions.

  19. Cognitive Architectures for Language Agents

    cs.AI 2023-09 accept novelty 6.0

    CoALA is a modular cognitive architecture for language agents that organizes memory components, action spaces for internal and external interaction, and a generalized decision-making loop to support more systematic de...

  20. UniSD: Towards a Unified Self-Distillation Framework for Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    UniSD unifies complementary self-distillation mechanisms for autoregressive LLMs and achieves up to +5.4 point gains over base models and +2.8 over baselines across six benchmarks and six models.

  21. Asymmetric On-Policy Distillation: Bridging Exploitation and Imitation at the Token Level

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Asymmetric On-Policy Distillation replaces ineffective negative reinforcement with localized divergence minimization in low-advantage regions, yielding 4.09-8.34 point gains over standard OPD on math reasoning benchmarks.

  22. Asymmetric On-Policy Distillation: Bridging Exploitation and Imitation at the Token Level

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Asymmetric On-Policy Distillation improves on-policy distillation by using divergence minimization instead of negative reinforcement in low-advantage regions, yielding 4-8 point gains on math reasoning benchmarks whil...

  23. A Survey of Self-Evolving Agents: What, When, How, and Where to Evolve on the Path to Artificial Super Intelligence

    cs.AI 2025-07 accept novelty 4.0

    The paper delivers the first systematic review of self-evolving agents, structured around what components evolve, when adaptation occurs, and how it is implemented.

  24. Data-Driven Function Calling Improvements in Large Language Model for Online Financial QA

    cs.IR 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    A pipeline of dataset construction from prior work, AugFC parameter augmentation, and two-step LLM training improves function calling for financial APIs and is running in production.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 21 Pith papers · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    API-Bank: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Tool-Augmented LLMs

    API-Bank: A Benchmark for Tool-Augmented LLMs. arXiv:2304.08244. Lu, P.; Peng, B.; Cheng, H.; Galley, M.; Chang, K.-W.; Wu, Y . N.; Zhu, S.-C.; and Gao, J. 2023. Chameleon: Plug-and- Play Compositional Reasoning with Large Language Mod- els. arXiv:2304.09842. Mialon, G.; Dess `ı, R.; Lomeli, M.; Nalmpantis, C.; Pa- sunuru, R.; Raileanu, R.; Rozi `ere, B.;...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    HuggingGPT: Solving AI Tasks with ChatGPT and its Friends in Hugging Face

    HuggingGPT: Solving AI Tasks with ChatGPT and its Friends in Hugging Face. arXiv:2303.17580. Song, Y .; Xiong, W.; Zhu, D.; Li, C.; Wang, K.; Tian, Y .; and Li, S. 2023. RestGPT: Connecting Large Language Models with Real-World Applications via RESTful APIs. arXiv:2306.06624. Taori, R.; Gulrajani, I.; Zhang, T.; Dubois, Y .; Li, X.; Guestrin, C.; Liang, P...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    On the tool manipulation capability of open-source large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16504,

    On the Tool Manipulation Capability of Open-source Large Language Models. arXiv:2305.16504. Yang, R.; Song, L.; Li, Y .; Zhao, S.; Ge, Y .; Li, X.; and Shan, Y . 2023. GPT4Tools: Teaching Large Language Model to Use Tools via Self-instruction. arXiv:2305.18752. Yao, S.; Zhao, J.; Yu, D.; Du, N.; Shafran, I.; Narasimhan, K.; and Cao, Y . 2022. ReAct: Syner...

    work page arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Write a general overview of the API 's purpose and functionality

    work page

  5. [5]

    List and briefly describe all features provided by the API, ensuring each feature has a clear and distinct purpose with low coupling between them

    work page

  6. [6]

    Use clear, concise language and avoid jargon, keeping the description under 300 tokens in length. <API> Name: AdoptAPet Link: https://www.adoptapet.com/public/apis/pet_list.html Introduction: Resource to help get pets adopted Description: The Adopt-a-Pet.com API (Application Programming Interface) is a series of tools that allows partners to use Adopt-a-P...

    work page

  7. [7]

    For each function of the API, detail its purpose, input requirements, and output results

    work page

  8. [8]

    Required/Optional. Integer. {some description}

    For function input, present it in JSON format. Each key should be the input parameter 's name, and its value should be a string indicating whether it 's required or not, its type, and a brief description, such as "Required/Optional. Integer. {some description}"

    work page

  9. [9]

    If such a function is necessary, incorporate input parameters to limit, filter, or paginate the results

    Do not design functions that return excessive data, such as 'getAllXxx'. If such a function is necessary, incorporate input parameters to limit, filter, or paginate the results

    work page

  10. [10]

    Only generate functions based on the API Description

    Limit the number of functions generated. Only generate functions based on the API Description. Do not create unnecessary functions that overcomplicate the API

    work page

  11. [11]

    If any API function requires fields that are not directly accessible to the users (like IDs, internal codes, etc.) as inputs, there must be corresponding methods for users to retrieve these values, such as through 'search' or 'list' functions

    work page

  12. [12]

    Output with the following format: {index}. Name: {function name, follow the camel case naming convention.} Description: {function short description} Input: {function input, presented as a single line without any formatting} Output: {function output, describe all the information that this function will return} Begin! Name: ${name} Link: ${link} Description...

    work page

  13. [13]

    Name the API with the 'title' field in the 'info' section, and include a 'version' and 'description' field to describe the API 's purpose and functionality succinctly

    work page

  14. [14]

    Exclude the 'tags' field in the specification

    work page

  15. [15]

    - Use the function 's name in the 'operationId' field

    For each function: - Design an endpoint, adhering to its definition and input/output requirements. - Use the function 's name in the 'operationId' field. Decompose the description of the function into appropriate fields. - For the endpoint 's input, provide additional details in the 'parameters' section to complement the function 's input requirements. Fo...

    work page

  16. [16]

    Include a 'description' field for each input parameter and 'requestBody' in the operation object to explain their purpose and usage

    work page

  17. [17]

    Ensure the OpenAPI Specification is comprehensive, capturing all functions mentioned in the API Introduction

    work page

  18. [18]

    Name: ${name} Link: ${link} Description: ${description} Functions: ${functions} OpenAPI Spec(Format with JSON, indent=1): 3 Figure 8: Openapi specification generation prompt

    For parameters/schemas with a 'type' of 'object', you must include their properties in the specification. Name: ${name} Link: ${link} Description: ${description} Functions: ${functions} OpenAPI Spec(Format with JSON, indent=1): 3 Figure 8: Openapi specification generation prompt. User Agent - Instruction Prompt Imagine that you are a user who wants to uti...

    work page

  19. [19]

    Use a mix of interrogative sentences, first-person statements, imperative sentences, and other structures that convey a request

    The instructions should be 1 to 2 sentences long. Use a mix of interrogative sentences, first-person statements, imperative sentences, and other structures that convey a request. Aim for diversity in your instructions

    work page

  20. [20]

    Do not mention the API 's name in your instructions

    work page

  21. [21]

    The instructions that need multiple times of API call is better

    Your instructions should only involve the features provided by these APIs. The instructions that need multiple times of API call is better

    work page

  22. [22]

    Generate 10 diverse instructions

    work page

  23. [23]

    this xxx

    Use specific nouns and real-world examples from various domains, such as entertainment, sports, or technology. Avoid using any form of placeholder or generic phrases, such as "this xxx", "a xxx" or "a specific xxx", and provide concrete details instead

    work page

  24. [24]

    Try not to repeat the verb for each instruction to maximize diversity

    work page

  25. [25]

    Final Answer

    Ensure diversity in language by combining questions with imperative statements and other structures that convey a request. <API> Name: ${name} Description: ${description} API Functions: ${functions} </API> Based on the API provided above, generate 10 natural language instructions with specific examples and diverse language, following the guidelines. 4 Fig...

    work page

  26. [26]

    Validate the HTTP method and parameters in the request according to the OpenAPI Spec

    work page

  27. [27]

    Generate a response that strictly adheres to the specified format in the OpenAPI Spec, and ensure it 's in JSON format

    work page

  28. [28]

    Avoid using placeholders

    Responses should contain realistic data. Avoid using placeholders

    work page

  29. [29]

    Handle edge cases by providing appropriate error responses

    work page

  30. [30]

    Output Format: Status Code: Include the HTTP response status code

    For requests without any length limit, ensure to return at least 3 samples in the response. Output Format: Status Code: Include the HTTP response status code. Response: Ensure your response is in JSON format, contains realistic data, and aligns with the OpenAPI Spec format. Explanation: Provide a brief explanation for the given response. Avoid any extrane...

    work page

  31. [31]

    You need to assess both the process and final response of the AI assistant's solution

    work page

  32. [32]

    For the process, refer to the standard answer: - The standard answer only includes function names and parameters, while the AI assistant 's solution also includes function returns. Therefore, it is acceptable to adjust the call situation based on the function return, such as retrying when the function errors, calling function `getDetails` for more informa...

    work page

  33. [33]

    You need to comprehensively judge whether the final response of the solution accurately summarizes the entire call process and provides a reasonable response to the initial instruction

    work page

  34. [34]

    countryCode

    You need to first analyze the entire solution according to the guidelines, then give your answer. Your output should adhere to the format: ## Analysis {some analysis} ## Results Process Correctness: one of [Yes, No, Uncertain] Final Response Correctness: one of [Yes, No, Uncertain] ## Documentation ${openapi_spec} ## Task Instruction ${instruction} ## Sta...

    work page 2023