Pith. sign in

REVIEW 17 cited by

MetaTool Benchmark for Large Language Models: Deciding Whether to Use Tools and Which to Use

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

arxiv 2310.03128 v6 pith:HSLQWUSV submitted 2023-10-04 cs.SE cs.CL

classification cs.SEcs.CL
keywords toolllmsselectiontoolsbenchmarklanguagemetatoolscenarios
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have garnered significant attention due to their impressive natural language processing (NLP) capabilities. Recently, many studies have focused on the tool utilization ability of LLMs. They primarily investigated how LLMs effectively collaborate with given specific tools. However, in scenarios where LLMs serve as intelligent agents, as seen in applications like AutoGPT and MetaGPT, LLMs are expected to engage in intricate decision-making processes that involve deciding whether to employ a tool and selecting the most suitable tool(s) from a collection of available tools to fulfill user requests. Therefore, in this paper, we introduce MetaTool, a benchmark designed to evaluate whether LLMs have tool usage awareness and can correctly choose tools. Specifically, we create a dataset called ToolE within the benchmark. This dataset contains various types of user queries in the form of prompts that trigger LLMs to use tools, including both single-tool and multi-tool scenarios. Subsequently, we set the tasks for both tool usage awareness and tool selection. We define four subtasks from different perspectives in tool selection, including tool selection with similar choices, tool selection in specific scenarios, tool selection with possible reliability issues, and multi-tool selection. We conduct experiments involving eight popular LLMs and find that the majority of them still struggle to effectively select tools, highlighting the existing gaps between LLMs and genuine intelligent agents. However, through the error analysis, we found there is still significant room for improvement. Finally, we conclude with insights for tool developers -- we strongly recommend that tool developers choose an appropriate rewrite model for generating new descriptions based on the downstream LLM the tool will apply to. Our code is in https://github.com/HowieHwong/MetaTool.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 17 Pith papers

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

  1. The Piggyback Hypothesis of Generalization: Explaining and Mitigating Emergent Misalignment

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    The Piggyback Hypothesis attributes emergent misalignment to chat-template tokens piggybacking finetuned behavior; Token-Regularized Finetuning (TReFT) mitigates it by regularizing prefix token representations.

  2. DICE-BENCH: Evaluating the Tool-Use Capabilities of Large Language Models in Multi-Round, Multi-Party Dialogues

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A new benchmark and metric show that large language models still struggle to call tools when the needed details are scattered across multi-party, multi-round group dialogues.

  3. WorkSurface-Bench: Benchmarking Enterprise Agents on Multi-Surface Knowledge Routing

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    WorkSurface-Bench measures surface routing separately from answer correctness and finds near-perfect routing still leaves 25–44% answer errors across four LLM backbones.

  4. Chain-of-Models: Cross-Model Auditing for Bias-Robust LLM Judges

    cs.CL 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Per-bias selection of a cross-family LLM auditor lifts biased-judgment accuracy from 0.805/0.824 baselines to 0.884.

  5. FitText: Evolving Agent Tool Ecologies via Memetic Retrieval

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    FitText embeds memetic evolutionary retrieval inside the agent's reasoning loop to iteratively refine pseudo-tool descriptions, raising retrieval rank from 8.81 to 2.78 on ToolRet and pass rate to 0.73 on StableToolBench.

  6. Open, Reliable, and Collective: A Community-Driven Framework for Tool-Using AI Agents

    cs.AI 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A community-maintained, schema-standardized toolbox with continuous intrinsic-tool evaluation yields 6–22% relative gains over a curated baseline across multiple LLM agent architectures.

  7. Gecko: A Simulation Environment with Stateful Feedback for Refining Agent Tool Calls

    cs.SE 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A simulated tool environment with argument validation, response synthesis, and task-state feedback improves LLM tool-call accuracy at test time.

  8. Beyond the Final Answer: Evaluating the Reasoning Trajectories of Tool-Augmented Agents

    cs.AI 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    TRACE uses an evidence bank to score tool-augmented LLM agents on efficiency, hallucination, and adaptivity without ground-truth trajectories.

  9. UserBench: An Interactive Gym Environment for User-Centric Agents

    cs.AI 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new multi-turn agent benchmark shows that current LLMs elicit fewer than 30% of user preferences and reach full intent alignment only about 20% of the time.

  10. Towards Compute-Optimal Many-Shot In-Context Learning

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Hybrid demonstration selection that adds 20 similar examples to a large cached random or k-means set matches or beats similarity-only selection at up to 10x lower estimated inference cost in many-shot ICL.

  11. Butterfly Effects in Toolchains: A Comprehensive Analysis of Failed Parameter Filling in LLM Tool-Agent Systems

    cs.SE 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLM tool agents fail at parameter filling in five recurring ways; perturbing tool documents and user queries drives most failures, and invented parameter names are tied to the model rather than the input.

  12. MassTool: A Multi-Task Search-Based Tool Retrieval Framework for Large Language Models

    cs.IR 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A multi-task retriever that combines tool-usage detection with query-centered graph and search-based modules improves tool retrieval accuracy over prior baselines.

  13. The Curious Language Model: Strategic Test-Time Information Acquisition

    cs.LG 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    CuriosiTree is a greedy tree-search policy that lets LLMs select cost-effective information-gathering actions at test time, outperforming baselines in a simulated clinical diagnosis environment.

  14. Beyond Semantic Similarity: Reducing Unnecessary API Calls via Behavior-Aligned Retriever

    cs.CL 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A contrastively trained retriever that selects behaviorally consistent call/no-call demonstrations raises H2A direct-response rate by 8.5 points and ToolDEER no-search accuracy by 4.2 points on average, without fine-t...

  15. Teaching a Language Model to Speak the Language of Tools

    cs.IR 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    LoRA fine-tuning of BgGPT models on a bilingual Bulgarian function-calling dataset yields large gains on a self-built 120-case benchmark while keeping knowledge benchmarks stable.

  16. Evaluation and Benchmarking of LLM Agents: A Survey

    cs.LG 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A review that proposes a two-dimensional taxonomy for evaluating LLM agents and highlights enterprise-specific evaluation gaps.

  17. Toward Efficient Agents: Memory, Tool learning, and Planning

    cs.AI 2026-01 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A survey that organizes efficiency techniques for LLM agents into memory, tool learning, and planning, and consolidates benchmarks and metrics for measuring cost-performance trade-offs.

Pith tools