AgentSelect: Benchmark for Narrative Query-to-Agent Recommendation
Organizations: University of Technology Sydney · Rutgers University · University of New South Wales · University of Sydney ·
Abstract
LLM agents are rapidly becoming the practical interface for task automation, yet the ecosystem lacks a principled way to choose among an exploding space of deployable configurations. Existing LLM leaderboards and tool/agent benchmarks evaluate components in isolation and remain fragmented across tasks, metrics, and candidate pools, leaving a critical research gap: there is little query-conditioned supervision for learning to recommend end-to-end agent configurations that couple a backbone model with a toolkit. We address this gap with AgentSelect, a benchmark that reframes agent selection as narrative query-to-agent recommendation over capability profiles and systematically converts heterogeneous evaluation artifacts into unified, positive-only interaction data. AgentSelectcomprises 111,179 queries, 107,721 deployable agents, and 251,103 interaction records aggregated from 40+ sources, spanning LLM-only, toolkit-only, and compositional agents. Our analyses reveal a regime shift from dense head reuse to long-tail, near one-off supervision, where popularity-based CF/GNN methods become fragile and content-aware capability matching is essential. We further show that Part~III synthesized compositional interactions are learnable, induce capability-sensitive behavior under controlled counterfactual edits, and improve coverage over realistic compositions; models trained on AgentSelect also transfer to a public agent marketplace (MuleRun), yielding consistent gains on an unseen catalog. Overall, AgentSelect provides the first unified data and evaluation infrastructure for agent recommendation, which establishes a reproducible foundation to study and accelerate the emerging agent ecosystem.
Figures & tables
| Field | Value |
| Backbone LLM | Name: Qwen2.5 Instruct-72B Description: Released in September 2024, Qwen2.5 pushes the context window to 128k and can generate passages up to 8k tokens. Relative to Qwen2 it shows … |
| Toolkit | Name: family_relation_finder Description: A tool designed to find and analyze familial relationships… Name: genealogy_query Description: Focusing on identifying various familial connections of historical or contemporary figures. Name: extract_last_name Description: Extracting the last name from a full name string… Name: advanced_character_counter Description: Counting occurrences of specified characters in given strings… |
| Configuration | Session History: add_history_to_messages: True read_chat_history: True read_tool_call_history: True Memory Management: enable_agentic_memory: True enable_user_memories: True enable_session_summaries: True Knowledge Integration: knowledge_base: Some Built Vector Databases |
| Method | Part I | Part II | Part III | ||||||||||||
| Prec. | Rec. | F1 | nDCG | MRR | Prec. | Rec. | F1 | nDCG | MRR | Prec. | Rec. | F1 | nDCG | MRR | |
| MF | |||||||||||||||
| LightFM | |||||||||||||||
| DNN (TFIDF) | |||||||||||||||
| DNN (Bert) | |||||||||||||||
| DNN (Bert ∗ ) | |||||||||||||||
| Features | Validation (Part III / Overall) | |||||||||
| Setting | LLM content | Tool content | LLM ID | Tool ID | P | R | F1 | Hit | nDCG | MRR |
| All modalities (content + IDs) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 0.4753 | 0.9506 | 0.6337 | 0.9830 | 0.9344 | 0.9453 |
| No LLM ID | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | 0.4728 | 0.9456 | 0.6304 | 0.9811 | 0.9284 | 0.9393 |
| No Tool ID | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | 0.4743 | 0.9485 | 0.6324 | 0.9850 | 0.9287 | 0.9447 |
| No IDs (LLM ID + Tool ID removed) | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | 0.4722 | 0.9444 | 0.6296 | 0.9826 | 0.9260 | 0.9436 |
| IDs only (no content) | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | 0.4659 | 0.9317 | 0.6211 | 0.9749 | 0.9127 | 0.9277 |
| Intervention ( ) | Consistency | ||
| Remove key tool | |||
| Remove secondary tool | |||
| Add irrelevant tool | |||
| Add redundant tool | |||
| Swap backbone (rank 2–5) | |||
| Mean std over 5 runs. denote Holm-corrected . | |||
| Training Data | Eval on Part I | Eval on Part II | Eval on Part III | |||
| nDCG@10 | % | nDCG@10 | % | nDCG@10 | % | |
| Train I+II | 0.9457 | – | 0.9562 | – | 0.4907 | – |
| Train I+II+III | 0.7111 | -23.46 | 0.9632 | +00.73 | 0.8341 | +69.98 |
| Train III | 0.5297 | -25.51 | 0.6217 | -35.45 | 0.9410 | +12.82 |
| Cutoff | Method | P | R | F1 | nDCG | MRR |
| @1 | EasyRec | |||||
| EasyRec | 0.4000 | 0.4000 | 0.4000 | 0.4000 | 0.4000 | |
| @5 | EasyRec | |||||
| EasyRec ∗ | 0.1360 | 0.6800 | 0.2267 | 0.5465 | 0.5023 | |
| @10 | EasyRec | |||||
| EasyRec ∗ | 0.0800 | 0.8000 | 0.1455 | 0.5870 | 0.5200 |
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Metric | Rec vs E2E-Label | Random vs E2E-Label | Gain over Random |
| Top-1 match | 0.364 [0.236, 0.491] | 0.236 [0.127, 0.345] | +53.9% |
| Spearman | 0.225 [0.111, 0.336] | 0.011 [ 0.140, 0.109] | +0.236 |
| Kendall | 0.185 [0.095, 0.276] | 0.007 [ 0.109, 0.087] | +0.193 |
| nDCG@1 | 0.695 [0.632, 0.759] | 0.608 [0.548, 0.672] | +14.2% |
| nDCG@3 | 0.819 [0.787, 0.850] | 0.765 [0.731, 0.798] | +7.1% |
| nDCG@5 | 0.907 [0.890, 0.923] | 0.880 [0.864, 0.897] | +3.0% |
Agent Benchmarks
Agent benchmarks measure how well AI systems plan, use tools and memory, and complete tasks in interactive environments.
See all 116 papers