aiqbench analysis
This research introduces SAAG, a diagnostic framework that breaks down agent-calling failures into specific stages like registry conformance and argument grounding to move beyond simple binary scoring. By providing interpretable feedback on where models hallucinate values or select functions incorrectly, the method enables targeted self-repair without relying on ground-truth leakage during evaluation. The findings suggest that decomposing these failure modes is essential for improving reliability in function-calling agents across different model families and registry scales.
SAAG: Structured Agent Assessment and Grounding
arXiv:2607.18245v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Exact-match evaluation of agent-calling obscures qualitatively different failure modes: a model may select the right function yet hallucinate argument values, or satisfy a schema while choosing a agent for the wrong reason. Existing benchmarks collapse these distinctions into a single binary score, leaving practitioners unable to diagnose where agent calls fail. We propose SAAG a cascaded diagnostic framework that decomposes agent-calling evaluation into three sequential stages: registry conformance, structural completeness, and argument grounding, each producing interpretable stage-specific diagnostics. These diagnostics additionally enable iterative self-repair: on prediction failure, the stage-specific signal guides targeted correction without leaking ground-truth values. We evaluate this framework on a controlled benchmark derived from Glaive's function-calling dataset across registry sizes of 5, 10, and 15 agents using three local sub-4B-parameter models. Structured feedback consistently improves argument precision and reduces value hallucination relative to single-pass inference and uninformative binary feedback, while end-to-end F1 gains are modest and model-dependent. These results suggest that stage-decomposed diagnostic evaluation is a necessary lens for understanding and improving agent-calling reliability across model families and registry scales.
Abstract:Exact-match evaluation of agent-calling obscures qualitatively different failure modes: a model may select the right function yet hallucinate argument values, or satisfy a schema while choosing a agent for the wrong reason. Existing benchmarks collapse these distinctions into a single binary score, leaving practitioners unable to diagnose where agent calls fail. We propose SAAG a cascaded diagnostic framework that decomposes agent-calling evaluation into three sequential stages: registry conformance, structural completeness, and argument grounding, each producing interpretable stage-specific diagnostics. These diagnostics additionally enable iterative self-repair: on prediction failure, the stage-specific signal guides targeted correction without leaking ground-truth values. We evaluate this framework on a controlled benchmark derived from Glaive's function-calling dataset across registry sizes of 5, 10, and 15 agents using three local sub-4B-parameter models. Structured feedback consistently improves argument precision and reduces value hallucination relative to single-pass inference and uninformative binary feedback, while end-to-end F1 gains are modest and model-dependent. These results suggest that stage-decomposed diagnostic evaluation is a necessary lens for understanding and improving agent-calling reliability across model families and registry scales.
Accepted to KnowFM @ ACL 2026 workshop (Non-Archival). 16 pages in total
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2607.18245 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2607.18245v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.18245 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 277 words
Related coverage

Hands-free first notice of loss: Using Strands Agents and Amazon Bedrock AgentCore Browser Tool for intelligent claims intake
AWS · Jun 9, 2026
Construct validity of Claude Opus 4.8's System Card – A commentary
LessWrong · Jun 12, 2026

FLF’s Epistemic Case Study Competition: Results
LessWrong · Oct 1, 2026

How I built agent-based security reviews on Databricks
Databricks · Sep 24, 2026