REVIEW 6 cited by
LongFuncEval: Measuring the effectiveness of long context models for function calling
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
LongFuncEval: Measuring the effectiveness of long context models for function calling
read the original abstract
Multiple recent studies have documented large language models' (LLMs) performance on calling external tools/functions. Others focused on LLMs' abilities to handle longer context lengths. At the intersection of these areas lies another interesting problem: LLMs' abilities to accurately perform function calls in long context settings. Particularly, when calling tools, LLMs are encumbered by three predominant challenges: (1) a large catalog of tools, (2) long responses from the tool APIs, and (3) long multi-turn conversations. These challenges are particularly relevant to enterprise applications of LLMs which engage in multi-turn conversations with users to complete complex tasks that require a large catalog of complex tools. The literature contains multiple investigations of long context challenges such as lost in the middle or needle in the haystack for natural language tasks. In this paper, we make the first attempt to comprehensively study the long context understanding capabilities of these models in the tool calling setup. We modify existing benchmarks for challenge 1 and 3, and create a new evaluation set for challenge 2 to enable this analysis. We gradually increase the input context length and also vary the position of the answer in the input. When evaluated with several long context models, we observe a performance drop of 7% to 85% as the number of tools increases, a 7% to 91% degradation in answer retrieval as the tool responses length increases, and 13% and 40% degradation for as multi-turn conversations get longer. Our study shows that LLMs still struggle with long context in tool calling settings, motivating future research to drive further LLM improvements.
Forward citations
Cited by 6 Pith papers
-
FinTrace: Holistic Trajectory-Level Evaluation of LLM Tool Calling for Long-Horizon Financial Tasks
FinTrace supplies trajectory-level metrics for LLM financial tool calling, exposing gaps in information use and output quality, while its preference dataset enables DPO training that boosts intermediate metrics.
-
MCP Server Architecture Patterns for LLM-Integrated Applications
Catalogues five MCP server architectural patterns observed across fifteen servers, plus anti-patterns and quantitative measurements on tool handling and overhead.
-
How Many Tools Should an LLM Agent See? A Chance-Corrected Answer
Bits-over-Random (BoR) is a chance-corrected metric for tool shortlist evaluation that enables query-adaptive depth selection via RL, matching fixed-list coverage with shorter lists on BFCL and ToolBench.
-
Gecko: A Simulation Environment with Stateful Feedback for Refining Agent Tool Calls
A simulated tool environment with argument validation, response synthesis, and task-state feedback improves LLM tool-call accuracy at test time.
-
Buildrix: An Open Platform for Sharing and Benchmarking Agentic AI Skills in Building Engineering
Buildrix is presented as an open platform for developing, sharing, executing, and evaluating agentic AI skills for building engineering workflows.
-
Scaling Enterprise Agent Routing: Degradation, Diagnosis, and Recovery
Routing F1 for under-specified requests drops 16-23pp as agent catalog scales to 110, but embedding shortlisting recovers 10-17pp on a 584-tool enterprise system.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.