Same Pieces, Different Servers: A Tetris Benchmark for AI Agents as Served

Agentic AI systems that invoke external tools are powerful but costly, leading developers to default to large models and overspend inference budgets. Model routing can mitigate this, but existing routers are designed for chat completion rather than tool use. We present Switchcraft, the first (to the best of our knowledge) model router optimized for agentic tool calling. Switchcraft operates inline, selecting the lowest-cost model subject to correctness. We construct an evaluation framework on five function-calling benchmarks and train a DistilBERT-based classifier, deployed under a latency budget. Switchcraft achieves 82.9% accuracy -- matching or exceeding the best individual model -- while reducing inference cost by 84%, saving over $3,600 per million queries. We find that larger models do not consistently outperform smaller ones on tool-use tasks, and that nominally cheaper models can incur higher total cost due to token-intensive reasoning. Our work enables cost-aware agentic AI deployment without sacrificing correctness.

Agent benchmarks should reflect what users actually ask deployed agents to do, yet existing benchmarks often miss key realism properties of real developer-agent sessions. We introduce RealClawBench, a live benchmark framework built from real OpenClaw sessions to capture the distribution, diversity, and real-world difficulty of deployed agent use. Real user requests are challenging to benchmark because they often depend on local execution environments, involve implicit or underspecified intent, and require nontrivial verification. RealClawBench addresses these challenges with two core mechanisms: reconstructed execution environments and deterministic verifiable scorers, which together convert real sessions into reproducible, automatically scored tasks. The resulting release contains 281 executable tasks sampled from a much larger real-session pool while preserving the source distribution, with maximum final-vs-source Jensen-Shannon divergence of 0.0448. Evaluating 14 contemporary models shows that the best system solves only 65.8% of tasks, revealing substantial headroom on realistic developer-agent workloads. By turning real deployed sessions into controlled evaluation instances, RealClawBench provides a practical path toward benchmarks that better measure agent capability in actual use. Code is available at:https://anonymous.4open.science/r/real-claw-bench-582B.

LLM deployment is shifting from single-turn completion to agentic trajectories in which a model plans, calls tools, reads results and reasons at test time before acting. This inverts the economics of inference hardware: chat serving amortises weight reads across large batches, whereas agent trajectories are sequentially dependent, run at effective batch one, and make per-token decode latency (TPOT) the dominant term in task completion time. Using a roofline analysis and a closed-form episode-latency model, we show why this regime favours accelerators that keep weights in on-die SRAM (Cerebras WSE-3/3T, Groq/NVIDIA LPU) or compiler-managed tiered memory (SambaNova SN40L/SN50), and why three vendor ecosystems converged in 2026 on disaggregated prefill/decode serving. We show that per-step reliability compounds exponentially in trajectory length-a 2% per-step failure rate erases a 2x decode advantage for a 20-step agent-so determinism and tail latency are first-order performance variables. We then propose a four-layer evaluation framework (silicon, serving system, agent episode, enterprise) with a metric set built on goodput at an agentic SLO and cost per successful episode, a six-axis benchmark protocol over six task families, a paired-bootstrap statistical design, an attestation protocol for vendor-run benchmarks, and TCO, availability and adoption-timing models with explicit break-even conditions. All performance figures are public and labelled by evidence class; we state seven falsifiable hypotheses and the experiments that test them, and argue that the most likely original result is that token-throughput rankings diverge from cost-per-successful-task rankings on long-horizon work.