PreprintCited by 141Topic ModelingSpeech and dialogue systemsNatural Language Processing Techniques

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

Open access
Li, Minghao, Zhao, Yingxiu, Yu, Bowen, Song, Feifan, Li, Hangyu, Yu, Haiyang, Li, Zhoujun, Huang, Fei +1 more·2023·arXiv

Abstract

Recent research has demonstrated that Large Language Models (LLMs) can enhance their capabilities by utilizing external tools. However, three pivotal questions remain unanswered: (1) How effective are current LLMs in utilizing tools? (2) How can we enhance LLMs' ability to utilize tools? (3) What obstacles need to be overcome to leverage tools? To address these questions, we introduce API-Bank, a groundbreaking benchmark, specifically designed for tool-augmented LLMs. For the first question, we develop a runnable evaluation system consisting of 73 API tools. We annotate 314 tool-use dialogues with 753 API calls to assess the existing LLMs' capabilities in planning, retrieving, and calling APIs. For the second question, we construct a comprehensive training set containing 1,888 tool-use dialogues from 2,138 APIs spanning 1,000 distinct domains. Using this dataset, we train Lynx, a tool-augmented LLM initialized from Alpaca. Experimental results demonstrate that GPT-3.5 exhibits improved tool utilization compared to GPT-3, while GPT-4 excels in planning. However, there is still significant potential for further improvement. Moreover, Lynx surpasses Alpaca's tool utilization performance by more than 26 pts and approaches the effectiveness of GPT-3.5. Through error analysis, we highlight the key challenges for future research in this field to answer the third question.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2304.08244

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • LLM agents can directly build on the functions of the underlying model, allowing many evaluation techniques originally developed for LLMs to use tools.

    “As a result, LLM agents can directly build on the functions of the underlying model, allowing many of the evaluation techniques originally developed for LLMs to use tools [47].”

    From Evaluation and Benchmarking of LLM Agents: A Survey (2025) · cites this paper as [47]

    Section 3.3 (page unavailable) evaluates tool-augmented LLM responses with ROUGE-L, supporting the use of an existing language-model evaluation metric in this setting. The paper does not establish that many LLM evaluation techniques transfer to agents, or make the broader claim about agents building directly on the underlying model's functions. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Datasets such as FlowBench, ToolBench, and API-Bank focus on tool use and function-calling across large API repositories.

    “Others, such as FlowBench [96], ToolBench [38], and API-Bank [47], focus on tool use and function-calling across large API repositories.”

    From Evaluation and Benchmarking of LLM Agents: A Survey (2025) · cites this paper as [47]

  • API-Bank comprises a comprehensive Tool-Augmented LLM workflow, encompassing 53 commonly used API tools and 264 annotated dialogues, encompassing a total of 568 API calls.

    “It comprises a comprehensive Tool-Augmented LLM workflow, encompassing 53 commonly used API tools and 264 annotated dialogues, encompassing a total of 568 API calls.”

    From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [109]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Cheng Qian, Chi Han, Yi R Fung, Yujia Qin, Zhiyuan Liu, and Heng Ji. 2023. Creator: Disentan- gling abstract and concrete reasonings of large lan- guage models through tool creation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14318. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Li, M., Zhao, Y., Yu, B., Song, F., Li, H., Yu, H., Li, Z., Huang, F., & Li, Y.
Affiliations
  • Alibaba Group (China) (CN)
  • Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HK)
  • Peking University (CN)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
Pages
3102-3116
OpenAlex
W4389518608
Cited by
124
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 57 · 2025: 47 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 6
FWCI
21.97
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Rare & Special e-Zone (The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
benchmark, error analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review