ToolSandbox: A Stateful, Conversational, Interactive Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Tool Use Capabilities
Open accessAbstract
Recent large language models (LLMs) advancements sparked a growing research interest in tool assisted LLMs solving real-world challenges, which calls for comprehensive evaluation of tool-use capabilities. While previous works focused on either evaluating over stateless web services (RESTful API), based on a single turn user prompt, or an off-policy dialog trajectory, ToolSandbox includes stateful tool execution, implicit state dependencies between tools, a built-in user simulator supporting on-policy conversational evaluation and a dynamic evaluation strategy for intermediate and final milestones over an arbitrary trajectory. We show that open source and proprietary models have a significant performance gap, and complex tasks like State Dependency, Canonicalization and Insufficient Information defined in ToolSandbox are challenging even the most capable SOTA LLMs, providing brand-new insights into tool-use LLM capabilities. ToolSandbox evaluation framework is released at https://github.com/apple/ToolSandbox
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
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?
Existing benchmarks for conversational AI agents simulate single-control environments, where only the AI agent can use tools to interact with the world, while the user remains a passive information provider.
“Existing benchmarks for conversational AI agents simulate single-control environments, where only the AI agent can use tools to interact with the world, while the user remains a passive information provider.”
From $τ^2$-Bench: Evaluating Conversational Agents in a Dual-Control Environment (2025) · cites this paper as [14]
The Introduction (pp. 1–2) describes several earlier benchmarks as evaluating agent tool use with single-turn queries or predefined dialogue trajectories, which supports a narrower claim about limited user interaction. It does not establish that existing benchmarks generally have single-control environments or that users cannot use tools; ToolSandbox’s own user simulator can call an end_conversation tool (Section 2.2, p. 4). (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
Toolformer: language models can teach themselves to use tools
Schick, T., Dwivedi-Yu, J., Dessi, R., Raileanu, R., Lomeli, M., Hambro, E., Zettlemoyer, L., Cancedda, N., & Scialom, T. (2023) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 · doi:10.52202/075280-2997 · Cited by 1,150 · see citing works
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 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Toolformer (Schick et al., 2023) first demonstrated that language models could autonomously learn to use various tools, through a self-supervised learning approach.”
MultiWOZ - A Large-Scale Multi-Domain Wizard-of-Oz Dataset for Task-Oriented Dialogue Modelling
Budzianowski, P., Wen, T.-H., Tseng, B.-H., Casanueva, I., Ultes, S., Ramadan, O., & Gašić, M. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d18-1547 · Cited by 1,028 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Contrary to prior approaches like dialog state tracking (Henderson et al., 2014; Budzianowski et al., 2018; Rastogi et al., 2020), which require the model to explicitly generate dialog states and actions under a predefined ontology, and derive a tool call from those structured outputs, tool-use…”
Towards Scalable Multi-domain Conversational Agents: The Schema-Guided Dialogue Dataset
Rastogi, A., Zang, X., Sunkara, S., Gupta, R., & Khaitan, P. (2019) · AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1909.05855 · Cited by 798 · cited 2×
“Contrary to prior approaches like dialog state tracking (Henderson et al., 2014; Budzianowski et al., 2018; Rastogi et al., 2020), which require the model to explicitly generate dialog states and actions under a predefined ontology, and derive a tool call from those structured outputs, tool-use…”
The Second Dialog State Tracking Challenge
Henderson, M., Thomson, B., & Williams, J. (2014) · SIGDIAL Conference · doi:10.3115/v1/w14-4337 · Cited by 624 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Contrary to prior approaches like dialog state tracking (Henderson et al., 2014; Budzianowski et al., 2018; Rastogi et al., 2020), which require the model to explicitly generate dialog states and actions under a predefined ontology, and derive a tool call from those structured outputs, tool-use…”
Jiang, A. Q., Sablayrolles, A., Mensch, A., Bamford, C., Chaplot, D. S., Casas, D. D. L., Bressand, F., Lengyel, G., Lample, G., Saulnier, L., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.06825 · Cited by 340 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Comparing to solv-ability in ToolEval, which assumes full credit for any task deemed unsolvable, this is much more fine-grained, testing if the agent would hallucinate when the task is unsolvable.”
Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context
Gemini Team, Georgiev, P., Lei, V. I., Burnell, R., Bai, L., Gulati, A., Tanzer, G., Vincent, D., Pan, Z., Wang, S., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.05530 · Cited by 306 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Further scenario statistics including category wise breakdown and milestone coverage can be found in Appendix B.4.”
Self-citationGorilla: Large Language Model Connected with Massive APIs
Patil, S. G., Zhang, T., Wang, X., & Gonzalez, J. E. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.15334 · Cited by 226 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Gorilla (Patil et al., 2023) employs a self-instruct paradigm to generate {instruction, API} pairs and is trained both with and without a retriever.”
Gorilla: Large Language Model Connected with Massive APIs
Patil, S., Zhang, T., Wang, X., & Gonzalez, J. (2024) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 · doi:10.52202/079017-4020 · Cited by 226 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Gorilla (Patil et al., 2023) employs a self-instruct paradigm to generate {instruction, API} pairs and is trained both with and without a retriever.”
Tool Learning with Foundation Models
Qin, Y., Hu, S., Lin, Y., Chen, W., Ding, N., Cui, G., Zeng, Z., Huang, Y., Xiao, C., Han, C., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.08354 · Cited by 184 · see citing works
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 · cited 1× · see citing works
“WebArena (Zhou et al., 2023), MiniWoB++ (Humphreys et al., 2022), Webshop (Yao et al., preprint), Mind2Web (Deng et al., 2023) and Visu-alWebArena (Koh et al., 2024) focus on the agent’s ability to call search functionality to browse and leverage the web to solve the task.”
A data-driven approach for learning to control computersPreprint
Humphreys, P., Raposo, D., Pohlen, T., Thornton, G., Chhaparia, R., Muldal, A., Abramson, J., Georgiev, P., Goldin, A., Santoro, A., et al. (2022) · International Conference on Machine Learning · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2202.08137 · Cited by 133 · cited 1× · see citing works
“WebArena (Zhou et al., 2023), MiniWoB++ (Humphreys et al., 2022), Webshop (Yao et al., preprint), Mind2Web (Deng et al., 2023) and Visu-alWebArena (Koh et al., 2024) focus on the agent’s ability to call search functionality to browse and leverage the web to solve the task.”
Towards Conversational Diagnostic AIPreprint
Tu, T., Palepu, A. K., Schaekermann, M., Saab, K. K., Freyberg, J., Tanno, R., Wang, A., Li, B., Amin, M., Tomašev, N., et al. (2024) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.05654 · Cited by 114 · see citing works
WebShop: Towards Scalable Real-World Web Interaction with Grounded Language Agents
Yao, S., Chen, H., Yang, J., & Narasimhan, K. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2207.01206 · Cited by 107 · see citing works
Towards Scalable Multi-Domain Conversational Agents: The Schema-Guided Dialogue Dataset
Rastogi, A., Zang, X., Sunkara, S., Gupta, R., & Khaitan, P. (2020) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v34i05.6394 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agents
Liu, X., Yu, H., Zhang, H., Xu, Y., Lei, X., Lai, H., Gu, Y., Ding, H., Men, K., Yang, K., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.03688 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Qin, Y., Liang, S., Ye, Y., Zhu, K., Yan, L., Lu, Y., Lin, Y., Cong, X., Tang, X., Qian, B., et al. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.16789 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
GoEX: Perspectives and Designs Towards a Runtime for Autonomous LLM ApplicationsPreprint
Patil, S. G., Zhang, T., Fang, V., Noppapon, C., Huang, R., Hao, A., Casado, M., Gonzalez, J. E., Popa, R. A., & Stoica, I. (2024) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.06921 · Cited by 39 · cited 1× · see citing works
“An orchestration level solution to enforce confirmation, similar to GoEx (Patil et al., 2024) could be a potential inspiration, and an interesting problem for models to reason over.”
Probing the Multi-turn Planning Capabilities of LLMs via 20 Question Games
Zhang, Y.-Z., Lu, J.-R., & Jaitly, N. (2023) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.82 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Self-citationWebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agents
Zhou, S., Xu, F. F., Zhu, H., Zhou, X., Lo, R., Sridhar, A., Cheng, X., Ou, T., Bisk, Y., Fried, D., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.13854 · Cited by 31 · cited 1× · see citing works
“WebArena (Zhou et al., 2023), MiniWoB++ (Humphreys et al., 2022), Webshop (Yao et al., preprint), Mind2Web (Deng et al., 2023) and Visu-alWebArena (Koh et al., 2024) focus on the agent’s ability to call search functionality to browse and leverage the web to solve the task.”
AgentBoard: An Analytical Evaluation Board of Multi-turn LLM Agents
Ma, C., Zhang, J., Zhu, Z., Yang, C., Yang, Y., Jin, Y., Lan, Z., Kong, L., & He, J. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.13178 · Cited by 26 · cited 4× · see citing works
“Zhang et al. (2024) develop a virtual environment for the agent model to predict unknown entities by interacting with a user simulator that responds with only yes or no.”
InfluentialStableToolBench: Towards Stable Large-Scale Benchmarking on Tool Learning of Large Language Models
Guo, Z., Cheng, S., Wang, H., Liang, S., Qin, Y., Li, P., Liu, Z., Sun, M., & Liu, Y. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.07714 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
MINT: Evaluating LLMs in Multi-turn Interaction with Tools and Language Feedback
Wang, X., Wang, Z., Liu, J., Chen, Y., Yuan, L., Peng, H., & Ji, H. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.10691 · Cited by 18 · cited 1× · see citing works
“MINT (Wang et al., 2024b) utilizes GPT-4 to simulate natural language user feedback for multi-turn LLM evaluation.”
Self-citation$τ$-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains
Yao, S., Shinn, N., Razavi, P., & Narasimhan, K. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.12045 · Cited by 9 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…like the Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) (Yan et al., 2024), ToolEval (Qin et al., 2024), API-Bank (Li et al., 2023), ToolTalk (Farn and Shin, 2023) and τ - bench (Yao et al., 2024) attempted to tackle some of these challenges, but there is yet to be an all encompassing solution.”
Reliable LLM-based User Simulator for Task-Oriented Dialogue Systems
Sekulić, I., Terragni, S., Guimarães, V., Khau, N., Guedes, B. T., Filipavicius, M., Manso, A. F., & Mathis, R. (2024) · Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Simulating Conversational Intelligence in Chat (SCI-CHAT 2024) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.scichat-1.3 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
ToolTalk: Evaluating Tool-Usage in a Conversational SettingPreprint
Farn, N., & Shin, R. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.10775 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
VisualWebArena: Evaluating Multimodal Agents on Realistic Visual Web Tasks
Koh, J. Y., Lo, R., Jang, L., Duvvur, V., Lim, M. C., Huang, P.-Y., Neubig, G., Zhou, S., Salakhutdinov, R., & Fried, D. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.13649 · Cited by 1 · cited 1× · see citing works
“WebArena (Zhou et al., 2023), MiniWoB++ (Humphreys et al., 2022), Webshop (Yao et al., preprint), Mind2Web (Deng et al., 2023) and Visu-alWebArena (Koh et al., 2024) focus on the agent’s ability to call search functionality to browse and leverage the web to solve the task.”
API-BLEND: A Comprehensive Corpora for Training and Benchmarking API LLMsPreprint
Basu, K., Abdelaziz, I., Chaudhury, S., Dan, S., Crouse, M., Munawar, A., Kumaravel, S., Muthusamy, V., Kapanipathi, P., & Lastras, L. (2024) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.15491 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
OpenAI, Achiam, J., Adler, S., Agarwal, S., Ahmad, L., Akkaya, I., Aleman, F. L., Almeida, D., Altenschmidt, J., Altman, S., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.08774 · cited 1×
“When evaluating the models, all models use the same minimalist prompt shown in Figure 8 for comparison fairness.”
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Paweł Budzianowski, Tsung-Hsien Wen, Bo-Hsiang Tseng, Iñigo Casanueva, Stefan Ultes, Osman Ramadan, and Milica Gaši´ c. 2018. MultiWOZ - a largescale multi-domain Wizard-of-Oz dataset for taskoriented dialogue modelling. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages 5016-5026, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Minghao Li, Yingxiu Zhao, Bowen Yu, Feifan Song, Hangyu Li, Haiyang Yu, Zhoujun Li, Fei Huang, and Yongbin Li. 2023. API-bank: A comprehensive benchmark for tool-augmented LLMs. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages 3102-3116, Singapore. Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Yujia Qin, Shihao Liang, Yining Ye, Kunlun Zhu, Lan Yan, Yaxi Lu, Yankai Lin, Xin Cong, Xiangru Tang, Bill Qian, Sihan Zhao, Lauren Hong, Runchu Tian, Ruobing Xie, Jie Zhou, Mark Gerstein, dahai li, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2024. Toolllm: Facilitating large language models to master 16000+ real-world apis. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations .
- Xingyao Wang, Yangyi Chen, Lifan Yuan, Yizhe Zhang, Yunzhu Li, Hao Peng, and Heng Ji. 2024a. Executable code actions elicit better llm agents. In ICML .
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Model Context Protocol (MCP): Landscape, Security Threats, and Future Research Directions
Hou, X., Zhao, Y., Wang, S., & Wang, H. (2026) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3796519 · Cited by 167 · see citing works
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 148 · see citing works
“ToolTalk [147] and ToolSand-box [155] concentrate on the ability of LLMs to utilize tools within multi-turn dialogues.”
Kapoor, S., Stroebl, B., Siegel, Z. S., Nadgir, N., & Narayanan, A. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.01502 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
AgentHarm: A Benchmark for Measuring Harmfulness of LLM Agents
Andriushchenko, M., Souly, A., Dziemian, M., Duenas, D., Lin, M., Wang, J., Hendrycks, D., Zou, A., Kolter, Z., Fredrikson, M., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.09024 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
“Most recently, Lu et al. (2024) presented a more comprehensive agentic benchmark.”
When2Call: When (not) to Call Tools
Ross, H., Mahabaleshwarkar, A. S., & Suhara, Y. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.naacl-long.174 · Cited by 4
$τ^2$-Bench: Evaluating Conversational Agents in a Dual-Control Environment
Barres, V., Dong, H., Ray, S., Si, X., & Narasimhan, K. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.07982 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“Existing benchmarks for conversational AI agents are designed to test their abilities to communicate effectively with a user and perform the right sequence of actions to solve tasks [26, 14, 23, 19].”
Gao, H.-A., Geng, J., Hua, W., Hu, M., Juan, X., Liu, H., Liu, S., Qiu, J., Qi, X., Wu, Y., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.21046 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Self-citationEnvScaler: Scaling Tool-Interactive Environments for LLM Agent via Programmatic Synthesis
Song, X., Chang, H., Dong, G., Zhu, Y., Wen, J.-R., & Dou, Z. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.05808
“Some work have explored the training data and RL strategies from different perspectives (Prabhakar et al., 2025; Liu et al., 2025b; Xu et al., 2025; Zhang et al., 2025; Zhao et al., 2025).”
HCAST: Human-Calibrated Autonomy Software Tasks
Rein, D., Becker, J., Deng, A., Nix, S., Canal, C., O'Connel, D., Arnott, P., Bloom, R., Broadley, T., Garcia, K., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.17354
“Other benchmarks evaluate general agentic skills like tool use (Lu et al., 2024; Zhuang et al., 2023; Yan et al., 2024), but the task distributions tend to be narrow and do not require much expertise to complete, and there isn’t an obvious mapping between the benchmark score and real-world…”
Xie, S., Shi, Z., Shen, H., Wang, J., Zhong, S., Liu, M., Pan, C., Jia, P., Sun, B., Jing, X., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.21482
MARFT: Multi-Agent Reinforcement Fine-Tuning
Liao, J., Wen, M., Wang, J., & Zhang, W. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.16129
“Although there are several "dynamic" benchmarks available, such as the Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (Yan et al., 2024; Patil et al., 2023), ToolSandBox (Lu et al., 2024), and GAIA (Mialon et al., 2024), converting these into dynamic environments that support MARL training remains an unresolved issue.”
Graphs Meet AI Agents: Taxonomy, Progress, and Future Opportunities
Bei, Y., Zhang, W., Wang, S., Chen, W., Zhou, S., Chen, H., Li, Y., Bu, J., Pan, S., Yu, Y., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.18019
“…Agent Task Reasoning, Task Decomposition, Tool Usage Github τ -bench [215] LLM Agent Tool Usage, Agent-Environment Interaction Github TOOLSANDBOX [216] LLM Agent Tool Usage, Agent-Environment Interaction Github REALM-Bench [217] LLM Agent Task Reasoning, Task Decomposition, Multi-Agent…”
- Authors
- Lu, J., Holleis, T., Zhang, Y., Aumayer, B., Nan, F., Bai, F., Ma, S., Ma, S., Li, M., Yin, G., Wang, Z., & Pang, R.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2408.04682
- OpenAlex
- W4402387511
- Semantic Scholar
- 7738e909d563d84fbd4ab5cb6aacf62c84fe2ab9
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- user simulator, evaluation benchmark, open-source vs closed-source models
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
