CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 0Information Retrieval and Search BehaviorTopic ModelingAI-based Problem Solving and Planning

Enrich-Retrieve-Rank: Scaling Capability Discovery Beyond In-Context Routing

Open access
Sorathiya, Nazib, Zhang, Daniel, Akhbari, Bardiya·2026·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2608.22695arXiv 2608.22695
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Agent ecosystems now include thousands of MATS components (Models, Agents, Tools, and Skills), yet their discovery still relies on in-context routing. These systems read a registry (names, hints, or descriptions, as context budget permits), pick a candidate, invoke it, and retry on failure. This pattern degrades with scale, and registries are growing fast. We recast capability discovery as search over a registry by defining an offline enrichment step that turns sparse metadata into searchable profiles, and an online retrieve-then-rank pipeline that returns a ranked shortlist without invoking any candidates online. We show that from N=10 to 7,278 capabilities, in-context routing's top-1 accuracy (Match@1) collapses (0.85 to 0.12), while retrieve-then-rank degrades more gently (0.81 to 0.39) because its reranker still ranks the right capability first 0.70-0.87 of the time once retrieval finds it. In the Nova Micro sweep, the crossover is around N=500. We compare against two in-context baselines. Full-Ctx puts the whole registry in the prompt and asks the LLM to pick. Search&Pick gives the LLM a search tool to narrow candidates before it picks. At full scale the pipeline leads Search&Pick by 6.5 percentage points (pp) on Match@1 at about half the cost. It reduces cost 70x versus Full-Ctx. We use a fixed configuration (same enrichment, retriever, and scorer weights) across agent, tool, and skill registries. The pipeline runs in production as the default capability-discovery layer of a large-scale multi-agent platform.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

The paper recasts capability discovery over large MATS registries as search rather than in-context routing, using offline enrichment plus an online retrieve-then-rank pipeline that returns a shortlist without invoking candidates. It reports that in-context routing collapses as registry size grows, while retrieve-then-rank degrades more gently and is deployed in production.

Key findings

  • From N = 10 to 7,278 capabilities, in-context routing’s Match@1 collapses from 0.85 to 0.12, while retrieve-then-rank degrades from 0.81 to 0.39; the reranker still ranks the right capability first 0.70–0.87 of the time once retrieval finds it, and the Nova Micro sweep places the crossover around N = 500.
  • On Tools-ToolRet (7,961 queries, N = 7,278), Ours+Titan reaches Match@1 0.397, a 6.5 pp lead over Search&Pick (0.332) at about half the token cost; Ours+BM25 is ∼70× cheaper than Full-Ctx ($0.066 vs. $4.48 per 1,000 queries).
  • Enrichment is neutral-to-negative on public data: ±0.1 pp Match@1 on ToolRet, 0.0 pp on AppWorld (+3.4 pp Match@3), and −4.4 pp on MCP; under controlled metadata degradation it improves Match@1 by +5.8, +9.1, and +25.6 pp from full descriptions to first-sentence hints to name-only, with name-only Recall@15 rising from 0.134 to 0.467.
  • On large-registry ToolRet, ∼70% of misses occur at retrieval (68% of Tools-ToolRet and 70% of Agents-ToolRet misses); neural retrievers raise Recall@15 over BM25 by +4.7–7.6 pp, but end-to-end Match@1 gains are small because reranker conditional accuracy is flat across retrievers.

Methods

  • Offline enrichment runs once per capability at registration: an LLM rewrites sparse metadata into five typed fields (capability summary, action-verb-led description, differentiating keywords, positive and negative usage examples), with trust score and self-reported tags added for production registries; these fields feed both retriever and reranker.
  • Online retrieve-then-rank retrieves top k ∈ {15, 25} candidates using BM25, neural, or hybrid retrieval, then combines four scores into [0, 1]: LLM (weight 0.50, one API call), BM25 (0.05), Quality (0.30), and Intent (0.15); public results use only LLM and BM25 at a fixed 10:1 ratio, and no candidate is invoked online.
  • Evaluation covers Tools, Agents, and Skills across ToolRet, AppWorld, and MCP; metrics include Match@k (k ∈ {1, 3, 5}), MRR, and Recall@k, with bootstrap 95% CIs via n = 1000 resamples; Nova Micro is the default reranker, with a four-model robustness check.

Limitations

  • Stated: the strongest conclusions come from ToolRet (n = 7,278); agent and skill benchmarks have construction limits that prevent independent cross-type claims; enrichment is neutral-to-negative on well-documented registries; sparse metadata does not occur naturally in the evaluated benchmarks and is reproduced through controlled degradation; Quality and Intent require trust and type metadata absent from public registries; no model-retrieval numbers are reported.
  • Stated/evident: Full-Ctx uses n = 500 subsamples on Tools-ToolRet, Agents-ToolRet, and Skills-MCP because the full registry exceeds Nova Micro’s context window; Agents-ToolRet shares queries and 89% of its registry with Tools-ToolRet, making it a near-replicate; Agents-AppWorld saturates at 1.00; Skills-MCP queries paraphrase capability descriptions, giving lexical retrievers an edge.
  • Evident: deployment evidence is architectural rather than an online evaluation, and operational evidence is limited to cost and latency; pipeline cost rows are post-hoc estimates (±5–10%), while baseline rows reflect real token counts.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2608.22695

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

5 of 16 cited sources checked · 3 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    AppWorld keeps agent selection implicit because the registry fits in context (n = 8).

    “AppWorld (Trivedi et al., 2024) keeps agent selection implicit because the registry fits in context (n = 8).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Trivedi et al., 2024 source

      Section 2.1 describes nine apps, not a registry of eight agents. Section 4.1 describes an API predictor used because the full API documentation is too large for the prompt, but does not discuss implicit agent selection or an agent registry that fits in context. Searches for an eight-agent registry and agent-selection rationale found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.72)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    Prior work reports degradation at a single scale.

    “Prior work reports degradation at a single scale (Shi et al., 2025;Du et al., 2024).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Shi et al., 2025 source

      Section 7.1 reports degraded tool-use performance when retrieved tools replace the annotated toolset; for ToolBench-G1, GPT-3.5’s pass rate falls by 11.40 points. Section 3.2 describes a fixed corpus of 43,000 tools, but the paper does not characterize the degradation as occurring at a ‘single scale’ or specify what scale the citing sentence means. (LLM, conf=0.78)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Du et al., 2024

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Findingown data

    The crossover between in-context routing and retrieve-then-rank is around N = 500 in the Nova Micro sweep.

    “In the Nova Micro sweep, the crossover is around N = 500.”
    • Also stated in: § 4.5 Scale and latency · plain
      “The crossover is around N = 500 in this Nova Micro sweep”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    On Tools-ToolRet (7,961 queries, N=7,278 capabilities), Ours+Titan reaches Match@1 0.397.

    “On Tools-ToolRet (7,961 queries, N =7,278 capabilities), Ours+Titan reaches Match@1 0.397”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    On an internal registry with trust and type metadata, Quality and Intent signals add +4.5 pp Match@1 (p = 0.031), with retrieval fixed.

    “On an internal registry with the required trust and type metadata, these signals add +4.5 pp Match@1 (p = 0.031), with retrieval fixed”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 27
  • May combine two claims. 58
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    ToolRet strips the pre-annotated tool list and shows that general IR models perform poorly on the resulting task.

    “ToolRet (Shi et al., 2025) strips the pre-annotated tool list and shows that general information retrieval (IR) models perform poorly on the resulting task.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Shi et al., 2025 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    RankGPT showed listwise LLM rerankers match supervised cross-encoders.

    “RankGPT (Sun et al., 2023) showed listwise LLM rerankers match supervised cross-encoders.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sun et al., 2023 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Two concurrent works apply enrich-then-retrieve to tools independently: Tool-DE and Multi-Field Tool Retrieval; neither studies how performance changes as the registry grows.

    “Two concurrent works apply enrich-then-retrieve to tools independently: Tool-DE (Lu et al., 2025) and Multi-Field Tool Retrieval (Tang et al., 2026).Neither studies how performance changes as the registry grows.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Lu et al., 2025

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Tang et al., 2026 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Below N=500, full-context LLM picking works; above it, Full-Ctx drops -13 pp per doubling and collapses once alphabetic truncation triggers at N ≥ 5,000 (4,023 of 7,278 tools silently dropped).

    “Below N = 500, full-context LLM picking works; above it, Full-Ctx drops -13 pp per doubling and collapses once alphabetic truncation triggers at N ≥ 5,000 (4,023 of 7,278 tools silently dropped).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Ours+Titan reaches 0.942 on Skills-MCP, closing most of the gap to Full-Ctx (0.968).

    “Even on Skills-MCP, Ours+Titan (0.942) closes most of the gap to Full-Ctx (0.968)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Titan attains the best end-to-end Match@1 on Tools-ToolRet (0.397); on Agents-ToolRet, BM25 retrieval leads (0.418).

    “Titan attains the best end-to-end Match@1 on Tools-ToolRet (0.397); on Agents-ToolRet, BM25 retrieval leads (0.418).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Retrieve-then-rank degrades from 0.81 to 0.39 as N grows from 10 to 7,278.

    “while retrieve-then-rank degrades more gently (0.81 → 0.39)”
    • Also stated in: § 4.5 Scale and latency · plain
      “The pipeline therefore degrades far more gracefully (0.81 to 0.39).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Today's systems discover capabilities by in-context routing.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    The three pipeline configurations sit within 0.9 pp on Tools-ToolRet (0.388, 0.389, 0.397) and 2.1 pp on Agents-ToolRet (0.397, 0.412, 0.418).

    “The three pipeline configurations sit within 0.9 pp on Tools-ToolRet (0.388, 0.389, 0.397) and 2.1 pp on Agents-ToolRet (0.397, 0.412, 0.418)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Ours+BM25 is ∼2× cheaper than Search&Pick and ∼70× cheaper than Full-Ctx ($0.066 vs. $4.48 per 1,000 queries).

    “It is ∼2× cheaper than Search&Pick and ∼70× cheaper than Full-Ctx ($0.066 vs. $4.48 per 1,000 queries).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Enrichment is neutral-to-negative on public data: ±0.1 pp Match@1 on ToolRet, 0.0 pp on AppWorld (with +3.4 pp Match@3), and -4.4 pp on MCP.

    “Enrichment is neutralto-negative on public data: ±0.1 pp Match@1 on ToolRet, 0.0 pp on AppWorld (with +3.4 pp Match@3), and -4.4 pp on MCP”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Full-Ctx is cheaper on Agents-AppWorld, and lexical baselines are more accurate on Skills-MCP.

    “Full-Ctx is cheaper on Agents-AppWorld, and lexical baselines are more accurate on Skills-MCP.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    ToolBench-IR's Recall@15 is 0.608 on Tools and 0.596 on Agents, below the general encoders (0.625 and 0.626); end-to-end Match@1 is lower (0.378 vs. 0.397 and 0.381 vs. 0.412).

    “Its Recall@15 is 0.608 on Tools and 0.596 on Agents, below the general encoders (0.625 and 0.626); end-to-end Match@1 is lower (0.378 vs. 0.397 and 0.381 vs. 0.412”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Qin et al., 2024

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    On large-registry ToolRet, ∼70% of misses occur at retrieval because BM25's top 15 excludes the ground-truth capability (68% of Tools-ToolRet and 70% of Agents-ToolRet misses).

    “On large-registry ToolRet, ∼70% of misses occur at retrieval because BM25's top 15 excludes the ground-truth capability (68% of Tools-ToolRet and 70% of Agents-ToolRet misses”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The pipeline beats Search&Pick on 13/16 Tools and 12/16 Agents sources with n ≥ 100.

    “The gain is broad as the pipeline beats Search&Pick on 13/16 Tools and 12/16 Agents sources with n ≥ 100”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    On both large ToolRet rows, Ours+BM25 is more accurate and uses fewer tokens than Full-Ctx and Search&Pick.

    “On both large ToolRet rows, it is more accurate and uses fewer tokens than Full-Ctx and Search&Pick.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Enrichment improves Match@1 by +5.8, +9.1, and +25.6 pp when degrading from full descriptions to first-sentence hints and names only.

    “Enrichment improves Match@1 by +5.8, +9.1, and +25.6 pp, respectively”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The large-registry gain from a stronger reranker is small, consistent with accuracy inside the 0.70-0.87 band.

    “The large-registry gain from a stronger reranker is small, consistent with accuracy inside the 0.70-0.87band.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The ultratool source (500 queries; 6.3% of ToolRet) is malformed; every label embeds the same tool document, so 287 referenced ground-truth tools are absent from the registry, and all methods score near zero on it.

    “The ultratool source (500 queries; 6.3% of ToolRet) is malformed.Every label embeds the same tool document, so 287 referenced ground-truth tools are absent from the registry, and all methods score near zero on it.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Recall is unchanged because retrieval is shared.

    “Recall is unchanged because retrieval is shared.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Full-Ctx wins or ties on the small rows, while Ours+BM25 leads on the large ToolRet rows.

    “Full-Ctx wins or ties on the small rows, while Ours+BM25 leads on the large ToolRet rows.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Excluding the ultratool source raises every method's Tools Match@1 by ∼2 pp and leaves the ordering unchanged.

    “Excluding it raises every method's Tools Match@1 by ∼2 pp and leaves the ordering unchanged.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    BM25 misses the Russian speech-emotion query because it shares no keywords with the ground-truth tool name.

    “The query shares no keywords with the ground-truth tool name, and BM25 misses it.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In-context routing's Match@1 collapses from 0.85 to 0.12 as registry size scales, while retrieve-then-rank degrades gently from 0.81 to 0.39, with the crossover around 500 entries in the Nova Micro sweep.

    “In-context routing's Match@1 collapses (0.85 → 0.12), while retrieve-then-rank degrades gently (0.81 → 0.39), with the crossover around 500 entries in the Nova Micro sweep.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Tools-AppWorld, the system predicts a single tool for a 9-tool trajectory, and Match@1 penalizes this while Recall@15 does not.

    “The ground truth is a 9-tool trajectory; the system predicts a single tool that treats the comment and the like as one action.Match@1 penalizes this; Recall@15 does not.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Across all sources with n ≥ 100, Ours+Titan leads Search&Pick on 13/16 Tools sources and 12/16 Agents sources.

    “Across all sources with n ≥ 100, Ours+Titan leads Search&Pick on 13/16 Tools sources and 12/16 Agents sources.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Match@1 gains are +5.8, +9.1, and +25.6 pp from full to name-only input.

    “Match@1 gains are +5.8,+9.1, and +25.6 pp from full to name-only input.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Sparse metadata does not occur naturally in the evaluated benchmarks.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Full-Ctx goes 0.85 → 0.12 across the scan; the pipeline's reranker stays 0.85 → 0.70.

    “Full-Ctx goes 0.85 → 0.12 across the scan; our pipeline's reranker stays 0.85 → 0.70.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Skills-MCP, the system promotes a generic Docker tool despite the query naming the correct sandbox server, because it overweights the surrounding intent.

    “The ground-truth tool is the named sandbox server, retrieved at rank 3; the system instead promotes a generic Docker tool.It overweights the surrounding intent (”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Fourteen queries change from miss to hit at rank 1 and four change from hit to miss when adding Quality and Intent (exact McNemar p = 0.031).

    “Fourteen queries change from miss to hit at rank 1 and four change from hit to miss (exact McNemar p = 0.031).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At full scale, prompt truncation drops 55% of the registry (4,023 of 7,278 tools) and creates additional misses.

    “At full scale, prompt truncation drops 55% of the registry (4,023 of 7,278 tools) and creates additional misses.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Regex's lists are long enough for M@3, M@5, and MRR but not for R@15.

    “Its lists are long enough for M@3, M@5, and MRR (Table 7) but not for R@15, so it is absent from that table (Table 8).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Agents-AppWorld picks an agent on of 147, scoring 0.014 vs. 0.125.

    “of 147, scoring 0.014 vs. 0.125.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    N ≤ 25 retrieval is identity and Ours ≈ Full-Ctx.

    “N ≤ 25 retrieval is identity and Ours ≈ Full-Ctx;”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    A ground-truth capability reaches the top 15 for ∼56% of queries, and the reranker ranks it first with ∼0.70 accuracy (0.39 ≈ 0.56 × 0.70).

    “A GT capability reaches the top 15 for ∼56% of queries, and the reranker ranks it first with ∼0.70 accuracy (0.39 ≈ 0.56 × 0.70).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Ours+Titan leads on Tools-ToolRet, AppWorld, and Skills-MCP; on Agents-ToolRet, Ours+BGE-5f leads; the saturated Agents-AppWorld row ties.

    “Ours+Titan leads on Tools-ToolRet, AppWorld, and Skills-MCP; on Agents-ToolRet, Ours+BGE-5f leads.The saturated Agents-AppWorld row ties.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Adding Quality and Intent improves Match@1 by +4.5 pp, Match@3 by +5.0 pp, and Recall@15 by 0.0 pp.

    “Match@1 | +4.5 pp”
    • Also stated in: § H Contribution of quality and intent · plain
      “Match@3 | +5.0 pp”
    • Also stated in: § H Contribution of quality and intent · plain
      “Recall@15 | 0.0 pp”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    ToolBench-IR improves standalone Match@1 over BM25 but does not exceed the best general encoder on Recall@15 or end-to-end Match@1.

    “ToolBench-IR improves standalone Match@1 over BM25 but does not exceed the best general encoder on Recall@15 or endto-end (E2E) Match@1.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At full scale the Enrich-Retrieve-Rank pipeline leads Search&Pick by 6.5 percentage points at about half the cost.

    “At full scale the pipeline leads Search&Pick by 6.5 pp at about half the cost.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    ToolRet combines queries from 35 upstream sources.

    “ToolRet combines queries from 35 upstream sources.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Public registries already have clean, detailed descriptions, so enrichment fills no gap.

    “Public registries already have clean, detailed descriptions, so enrichment fills no gap.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    N ≥ 5,000 Ours is bottlenecked by BM25 recall, not its own design.

    “N ≥ 5,000 Ours is bottlenecked by BM25 recall, not its own design;”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationown data

    This failure mode motivates the neural retriever in §4.4.

    “This failure mode motivates the neural retriever in §4.4.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The ToolRet rows use a 1,000-tool subset, so absolute numbers are low but the raw-vs-enriched delta is the quantity of interest.

    “The ToolRet rows use a 1,000-tool subset, so absolute numbers are low but the raw-vs-enriched delta is the quantity of interest.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Sparse metadata does not occur naturally in the evaluated benchmarks.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Mulang' et al. (2026) use a knowledge-graph index over MCP servers; their graph-based filtering improves discovery at 269 tools but not on smaller curated menus.

    “Mulang' et al. (2026) instead use a knowledge-graph index over MCP servers; their graph-based filtering improves discovery at 269 tools but not on smaller curated menus.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mulang' et al., 2026

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    PLUTO pairs planning with description editing and is the closest prior recipe to ours; it does not quantify the retrieve-vs-rerank decomposition or study scale.

    “PLUTO (Huang et al., 2024a) pairs planning with description editing and is the closest prior recipe to ours.It does not quantify the retrieve-vs-rerank decomposition or study scale.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Huang et al., 2024a

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The discovery stage ranks candidates without invoking them, so it does not run candidate code.

    “The discovery stage ranks candidates without invoking them, so it does not run candidate code.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Regex emits a deterministic ranked list (regex hits first, then alphabetic).

    “Regex emits a deterministic ranked list (regex hits first, then alphabetic).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationown data

    We retain enrichment because production metadata includes the sparse conditions under which the ablation shows a retrieval gain.

    “We retain enrichment because production metadata includes the sparse conditions under which the ablation in §4.3 shows a retrieval gain.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The single-pick baselines emit one capability per query, so M@3, M@5, MRR, and R@15 are undefined for them.

    “The single-pick baselines emit one capability per query, so M@3, M@5, MRR, and R@15 are undefined.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    We evaluate the 1,252 queries whose groundtruth capability occurs in the pool.

    “We evaluate the 1,252 queries whose groundtruth capability occurs in the pool.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Sparse metadata does not occur naturally in the evaluated benchmarks.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Trial&Err is scored on its final try; it can fall below the 1/n random-pick rate when it exhausts its round budget without committing.

    “Trial&Err is scored on its final try.It can fall below the 1/n random-pick rate when it exhausts its round budget without committing.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    We set the four weights once according to each signal's role and do not tune them by capability type or dataset.

    “We set the four weights once according to each signal's role and do not tune them by capability type or dataset.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The public benchmarks involve no human subjects or private data.

    “The public benchmarks involve no human subjects or private data.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Baseline rows reflect real token counts; pipeline rows are post-hoc estimates (±5-10%).

    “Baseline rows reflect real token counts.Pipeline rows are post-hoc estimates (±5-10%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Full-Ctx runs on a 500-capability subsample because the full registry exceeds Nova Micro's context window.

    “Full-Ctx runs on a 500-capability subsample because the full registry exceeds Nova Micro's context window.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    All four MATS types coexist in a single index with shared enrichment schema and scorer weights.

    “All four MATS types coexist in a single index with shared enrichment schema and scorer weights.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Full-Ctx uses 500-candidate subsamples on ToolRet and Skills-MCP, so these points do not estimate a shared threshold.

    “Full-Ctx uses 500candidate subsamples on ToolRet and Skills-MCP (Table 2), so these points do not estimate a shared threshold.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Comparisons are consistent with the sweep, but only Figure 2 estimates the crossover at N = 500.

    “Comparisons are consistent with the sweep, but only Figure 2 estimates the crossover at N = 500.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    AnyTool uses a hierarchical agent over 16k APIs but does not separate retrieval from MATS invocation.

    “AnyTool (Du et al., 2024) uses a hierarchical agent over 16k APIs but does not separate retrieval from MATS invocation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Du et al., 2024

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The deployment evidence is architectural rather than an online evaluation, and operational evidence is limited to cost and latency.

    “The deployment evidence is architectural rather than an online evaluation, and our operational evidence is limited to cost and latency (Table 3).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The entire online path requires one LLM call at bounded latency.

    “The entire online path requires one LLM call at bounded latency.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    We compute bootstrap 95% confidence intervals via n=1000 resamples; all reported deltas ≥5 pp exceed the 95% CI width.

    “We compute bootstrap 95% confidence intervals (CIs) via n = 1000 resamples; all reported deltas ≥ 5 pp exceed the 95% CI width”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The production registry exceeds 500 across all four MATS types, in the regime where single-stage LLM routing fails, so retrieve-then-rank is an architectural requirement, not a preference.

    “The production registry exceeds 500 across all four MATS types, in the regime where single-stage LLM routing fails (-13 pp Match@1 per doubling past the crossover), so retrieve-then-rank is an architectural requirement, not a preference.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: At large scale, an orchestrator cannot place every candidate in context.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Agents-ToolRet shares queries and 89% of its registry with Tools-ToolRet, so it is a near-replicate rather than independent evidence.

    “Agents-ToolRet shares queries and 89% of its registry with Tools-ToolRet, so it is a nearreplicate rather than independent evidence.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Meta-Tool and Qu et al. confirm tool selection is the dominant failure mode but propose no retrieve-then-rank pipeline.

    “Meta-Tool (Huang et al., 2024b) and Qu et al. (2024) confirm tool selection is the dominant failure mode but propose no retrieve-then-rank pipeline.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Huang et al., 2024b

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Qu et al., 2024

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    We hold retrieval fixed and report only paired performance differences.

    “We hold retrieval fixed and report only paired performance differences.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    This comparison starts from the upstream fields and isolates how much enrichment recovers as those fields are removed.

    “The present comparison starts from the upstream fields and isolates how much enrichment recovers as those fields are removed.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Sparse metadata does not occur naturally in the evaluated benchmarks.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Each group remains part of the same benchmark and is evaluated against the same registry.

    “Each group remains part of the same benchmark and is evaluated against the same registry.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    All retrievers use the same five-field documents and k = 15.

    “All retrievers use the same five-field documents and k = 15.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
69 of 69

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Today's systems discover capabilities by in-context routing.

    “Today's systems discover capabilities by incontext routing.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Registries are growing fast.

    “registries are growing fast.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Every wrong invocation costs tokens and latency, and may call an untrusted endpoint just to learn what it does.

    “Every wrong invocation costs tokens and latency, and may call an untrusted endpoint just to learn what it does.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    At large scale, an orchestrator cannot place every candidate in context.

    “At that scale an orchestrator cannot place every candidate in context”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Sparse metadata does not occur naturally in the evaluated benchmarks.

    “Sparse metadata does not occur naturally in the evaluated benchmarks, so we reproduce it through controlled degradation.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Public benchmarks lack the trust and type metadata that Quality and Intent need.

    “Quality and Intent require trust and type metadata absent from public registries; public numbers reflect the two-signal pipeline only.”
    “Public benchmarks lack the trust and type metadata that Quality and Intent need, so these two signals drop out ( §3.3).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The production registry indexes models alongside the other types under the same schema.

    “The production registry indexes models alongside the other types under the same schema, but we report no model-retrieval numbers.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Existing model-routing literature addresses model-as-capability retrieval.

    “Existing modelrouting literature addresses that case, and no public benchmark isolates model-as-capability retrieval.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No public benchmark isolates model-as-capability retrieval.

    “Existing modelrouting literature addresses that case, and no public benchmark isolates model-as-capability retrieval.”
9 of 9

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Tools-AppWorld Nova Micro result conflicts across tables

    Major

    Table 4 reports Match@1 of 0.782 for Nova Micro on Tools-AppWorld, but Table 2 reports at most 0.741 for its Nova Micro pipeline configurations. The 0.782 result would also overturn the stated conclusion that Full-Ctx leads on this benchmark (0.762 versus 0.741).

  • Full-Ctx does not win or tie on every small row

    Minor

    On Agents-AppWorld, Table 2 gives Full-Ctx 0.986 and Ours+BM25 1.000, contradicting the figure caption's claim that Full-Ctx wins or ties on the small rows.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Isaiah Onando Mulang', Johannes Thaller, Tushar Trivedi, Lars Heling, and Felix Sasaki. 2026. Rep- resenting agentic tools in knowledge graphs for structure-aware tool discovery under tool overload. In GENAIK-NORA 2026: Joint Workshop on Gen- erative AI and Knowledge Graphs and Knowledge Graphs & Agentic Systems Interplay, IJCAI-ECAI 2026 Workshops, Bremen, Germany. OpenReview: https://openreview.net/forum?id=7MVoH9Y3 mi.

Cited by

Still being checked.

Authors
Sorathiya, N., Zhang, D., & Akhbari, B.
Affiliations
Amazon (United States) (US)
ORCID
Akhbari, Bardiya
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2608.22695
arXiv
2608.22695
OpenAlex
W7204199578
Cited by
0
References
25
Type
posted content
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Keywords
multi-agent systems, retrieval-augmented generation, re-ranking

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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