The DOI matches its DataCite record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
API-Bank: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Tool-Augmented LLMs
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“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]
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“the API-Bank benchmark [109] is introduced as the first benchmark explicitly designed for tool-augmented LLMs.”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [109]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Language Models are Few-Shot Learners
Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.14165 · Cited by 23,372
LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models
Touvron, H., Lavril, T., Izacard, G., Martinet, X., Lachaux, M.-A., Lacroix, T., Rozière, B., Goyal, N., Hambro, E., Azhar, F., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.13971 · Cited by 4,602
Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4
Bubeck, S., Chandrasekaran, V., Eldan, R., Gehrke, J., Horvitz, E., Kamar, E., Lee, P., Lee, Y. T., Li, Y., Lundberg, S., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.12712 · Cited by 1,526
Self-citationEvaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code
Chen, M., Tworek, J., Jun, H., Yuan, Q., Pinto, H. P. D. O., Kaplan, J., Edwards, H., Burda, Y., Joseph, N., Brockman, G., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2107.03374 · Cited by 1,436
Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools
Schick, T., Dwivedi-Yu, J., Dessì, R., Raileanu, R., Lomeli, M., Zettlemoyer, L., Cancedda, N., & Scialom, T. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.04761 · Cited by 1,150
GLM: General Language Model Pretraining with Autoregressive Blank Infilling
Du, Z., Qian, Y., Liu, X., Ding, M., Qiu, J., Yang, Z., & Tang, J. (2022) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.26 · Cited by 1,068
Paleolithic Technology and Human Evolution
Ambrose, S. H. (2001) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1059487 · Cited by 791
ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models
Yao, S., Zhao, J., Yu, D., Du, N., Shafran, I., Narasimhan, K., & Cao, Y. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.03629 · Cited by 608
ToolQA: A Dataset for LLM Question Answering with External ToolsPreprint
Zhuang, Y.-C., Yu, Y., Wang, K., et al. (2023) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.13304 · Cited by 421
ART: Automatic multi-step reasoning and tool-use for large language modelsPreprint
Paranjape, B., Lundberg, S., Singh, S., Hajishirzi, H., Zettlemoyer, L., & Ribeiro, M. T. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.09014 · Cited by 353
Research works printed but not linked: 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
A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models
Chang, Y., Wang, X., Wang, J., Wu, Y., Yang, L., Zhu, K., Chen, H., Yi, X., Wang, C., Wang, Y., et al. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/3641289 · Cited by 4,254
A survey on large language model based autonomous agents
Wang, L., Ma, C., Feng, X., Zhang, Z., Yang, H., Zhang, J., Chen, Z., Tang, J., Chen, X., Lin, Y., et al. (2024) · Frontiers of Computer Science · doi:10.1007/s11704-024-40231-1 · Cited by 1,941
Mind2Web: Towards a Generalist Agent for the Web
Deng, X., Gu, Y., Zheng, B., Chen, S., Stevens, S., Wang, B., Sun, H., & Su, Y. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.06070 · Cited by 134
Datasets for large language models: a comprehensive survey
Liu, Y., Cao, J., Liu, C., Ding, K., & Jin, L. (2025) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-025-11403-7 · Cited by 268
Tool learning with large language models: a survey
Qu, C., Dai, S., Wei, X., Cai, H., Wang, S., Yin, D., Xu, J., & Wen, J.-R. (2025) · Frontiers of Computer Science · doi:10.1007/s11704-024-40678-2 · Cited by 266
Metadata
- 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
- arXiv
- 2304.08244
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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
